TD Spring Summer 2009

Transcription

T R A N S P O R TAT I O N >
DELIVERED
Spring/Summer 2009
Double-tracking Union Pacific’s Sunset Route > pg. 1
© Keith Philpott
IN THIS ISSUE
1
Freight Railroad -> Track Design and Engineering
Smooth Railroading for Union Pacific’s Sunset Route
A disciplined approach set the stage for efficient design of three
100-mile segments of double track and 984 structures.
Cover Photo: © Keith Philpott
6
11
13
19
23
27
33
Rehabilitating the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard for NISMO > pg. 33
Financial -> Risk Analysis
Risk Analysis Sheds New Light on Economics of Transportation Projects
HDR’s Risk Analysis Process adds probabilities to cause-and-effect variables
to create a more accurate evaluation of whether a proposed facility is
financially stable.
Aviation -> Facility Design
Design Standards Help U.S. Customs Manage International Airports
With more than a quarter of a million international passengers processed in
American airports each day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection depends
on intelligently designed facilities to keep the country secure.
Transit -> High Speed Rail
High Speed Rail…Coming to a Corridor Near You?
As the United States prepares to make a push for high speed rail, HDR’s
National Director of Transit Engineering discusses the concept, the
technology and the challenges that lie ahead.
Technical Excellence -> Intelligent Transportation Systems
An Intelligent Answer for the Nation’s Traffic Signal Control Problem
A new technology provides adaptability to traffic signal operations —
improving traffic flow by as much as 40 percent.
Private Land Development -> Roadway Design
Navigating the Ortega Highway Widening Project
The Rancho Mission Viejo Company took an active role to ensure
this roadway project was in keeping with its tradition of responsible
development.
Roadway -> Tolling
The Evolution of Toll Technology
Open road tolling is paving the way for widespread implementation of
direct user fees, which could help solve the nation’s transportation funding
dilemma.
Maritime -> Pier Rehabilitation
Creative Approach to Keep NISMO Operational
Faced with the challenge of updating the 90-year-old Philadelphia
Naval Shipyard, the U.S. Navy now has options thanks to a unique pier
rehabilitation plan.
Freight Railroad -> Track Design and Engineering
S M O OT H
RAILROADING
FOR
U N I O N PAC I F I C ’ S
SUNSET ROUTE
By Amanda Stahlnecker, E.I.T., and Nathan Dickerson, P.E.
So when it came time to expand the Sunset Route to a
fully double-tracked line, it was crucial that the project
run smoothly. Initially intended to be a design-build
project, the Sunset Route expansion later was adapted
to conventional design-bid-build with an accelerated
schedule. One benefit that came from the original plan
to go design-build was the organization of the multiple
disciplines collaborating on the project. One leader was
assigned to each discipline group, and those leaders
reported directly to the project manager. This structured
approach meant that a small team of individuals could
both manage their own disciplines and maintain regular
communication with leaders from the other groups.
The result was an open flow of information that helped
simplify a large and complex undertaking.
Double Time
When Union Pacific took over the Sunset Route 13
years ago as part of its Southern Pacific acquisition,
[1] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
about 25 percent of the route’s 760 miles were doubletracked. Until recently, the railroad was committed to
adding double track to the remaining sections in short
segments. But as anticipated growth of freight traffic
along the Sunset Route soared, so did the railroad’s
need to complete its expansion.
In 2006, Union Pacific hired HDR to perform design and
engineering services for three 100-mile segments. The
contract included track, structural and roadway design
(for at-grade crossings), geotechnical analysis, and
control point and signal placement. HDR brought in
Southwest Engineering Corp (now Xorail Inc.) to provide
the signal design, and AMEC, MACTEC and Shannon &
Wilson contributed to the geotechnical work.
With 300 miles of new track, the Sunset Route project
presented a number of challenges in terms of design
and coordination. From a design perspective, it passes
through seven counties and features 82 road crossings,
756 culverts, 140 bridges, six overhead structures, 3.2
million cubic yards of cut and 4 million cubic yards of
fill. There also is a unique section in Segment 1 where
a 44-mile-long tangent leads into a 5-mile-long curve.
Another unique aspect of this project was the inclusion
of roadway as part of the overall contract. Designing the
roadway in-house proved beneficial with the number of
roadway profiles that needed to be adjusted to current
standards, as well as potential impacts to intersections
in locations where roadways ran parallel to the track.
> Double-tracking the Sunset Route will help keep
Union Pacific trains on schedule as they move freight
from the ports of Southern California to other mainlines
throughout the Southern and Midwest regions.
© Keith Philpott
About one-quarter of Union Pacific Railroad freight cars
originate or terminate in Southern California, many of
them traveling the Sunset Route between Los Angeles
and El Paso. From the El Paso end, Sunset connects to
three other major Union Pacific lines, one headed for
Kansas City and Chicago; another going to Dallas and
Memphis; and the third running to Houston and New
Orleans. Loaded with automobiles, building supplies,
ethanol, marine containers and other goods, the trains
are vital to the railroad’s freight movements throughout
the Southern and Midwest regions.
[2]
Disciplined Approach
On a traditional railroad project, the
track team would likely take the
lead and other disciplines would be
coordinated through them. But since
there were so many pieces to the
project and the scope of each was so
large, organizing the team to fit that
scope became the first important
step in putting it all together. After
evaluating what needed to be
Leaders assigned to each discipline
communicated directly with their
counterparts at Union Pacific. They
also participated in weekly meetings
to coordinate their work. This provided
a format for sharing information that
affected two or more disciplines.
> Raised aprons were used to improve low flow conditions at many culvert
locations. Rock riprap placed at the inlet and outlet ends reduces soil loss
in the highly erodible desert soils.
To keep track of the communications
flowing between disciplines, as well
as to and from the client, an e-mail
account was established for each
discipline. All official correspondence
was sent using these e-mail accounts,
making it easier to compile important
decision-making documents when
the project was closed, and then turn
those documents over to the client.
© Keith Philpott
done, the work was divided into six
disciplines:
• Track
• Signal
• Geotechnical
• Roadway
• Structures
• Project controls
held formal discussions to determine
how worksharing folders would be
organized. Procedures were clearly
spelled out so designers in Omaha,
Tucson, Phoenix, Albuquerque,
Denver, Missoula, Boise, Portland
and Irvine all could contribute to the
project and know exactly where to
find the files they needed.
Each office was assigned a folder,
which was stored on their local
servers to improve download and
upload speeds. The procedural
documentation even provided
instructions on how to name files.
A project controller tracked and
managed the documents, making
sure that Union Pacific would be
able to access specific files after the
completed project documentation
was turned over.
As with other aspects of the project,
the volume of design documentation
was anticipated to be much larger
than traditional projects. Before work
on the project got underway, the team
© Keith Philpott
The results were so successful the
project team was asked to complete
additional roadway work on the
smaller portions of the route.
Organization Pays Off
At the beginning of each 100-mile
segment, Union Pacific provided the
design team a set of straightlines
that indicated the proposed work to
be completed with the project. This
included proposed track location and
transitions, setout track and control
point locations, and miscellaneous
existing features that would be
impacted. From these straightlines, a
preliminary design was established.
The locations of the setout tracks and
control points were not exclusively
related to track design; they also
impacted how signals and structures
were
designed.
Furthermore,
geotechnical analysis would affect
locations for all of these features. To
coordinate all areas of design, the
discipline leads met with the client
very early in the design process to
discuss concerns and coordination of
the preliminary design.
The track design team created
a document to accompany the
preliminary design to instigate
[3]
> Looking south at an adjusted roadway profile at the Sunshine Boulevard
grade crossing. Designing the roadway in-house proved beneficial given
the number of profiles that had to be adjusted to current standards.
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [4]
© Keith Philpott
> HDR’s economists first developed the Risk Analysis Process for toll
road projects to help insurers such as MBIA evaluate how much
of a project’s debt is safe to insure.
© Vince Streano
> A production tamper lines up new track for the Sunset Route second mainline.
Risk Analysis Sheds New Light on Economics of
discussions and facilitate easier decision-making
by the client. The document included an analysis
of the proposed location of control points and
setout tracks, relayed potential issues and possible
solutions, and recommended the most beneficial
location. Without this meeting and document,
the likelihood of design volleying back and forth
between the various disciplines and the client
would have increased dramatically.
Conclusion
Design for the three segments has been
substantially completed, with the exception of
roadway and signal design for the third segment.
Construction on the first segment is nearly
complete. Considering the scope of the Sunset
Route design, team leaders from HDR and the
client agree that the way the project was organized
proved to be very efficient. David Heineman,
Assistant Chief Engineer — Construction for Union
Pacific, said “The team produced quality designs
and plans…while accommodating numerous
changes in construction priorities and requests for alternative designs
to enable Union Pacific to make the right decisions and create
exceptionally more detailed roadway and permitting processes.” ->
Transportation Projects
By Dennis Bruce and David Lewis, Ph.D.
AU T H O R S
> Amanda Stahlnecker, E.I.T., is a Rail E.I.T. in HDR’s
Omaha, Neb., office. Amanda is experienced with track
design, plan preparation, feasibility studies, cost
estimation and construction support. She can be
reached at [email protected].
> Nathan Dickerson, P.E., is a Project Manager in HDR’s
Omaha, Neb., office. Nathan specializes in designing
railroad bridges, retaining walls and culverts. He can be
While economic forecasts help provide insight as to whether
a project can generate the necessary revenue to repay debt
(such as revenue bonds), traditional forecasting methods fail
to account for risk. Sure, the single expected outcome can be
supplemented with alternative scenarios to show a range of
other possible outcomes, but that approach fails to indicate
the probability associated with different outcomes. HDR’s
Risk Analysis Process (RAP), on the other hand, measures the
probabilities that each particular outcome might occur, thus
painting a more realistic and useful picture of whether the
proposed facility is financially viable.
How Much vs. How Likely
Simply creating “high case” and “low case” scenarios to
bracket the central estimate exacerbates the problem
of dealing with risk because it gives no indication of the
likelihood associated with alternative outcomes. The
commonly reported high case may assume that most
underlying assumptions deviate in the same direction from
their expected value, and likewise for the low case. While
this tells the forecaster how a facility might be impacted,
the likelihood that all underlying factors will shift in the
same direction simultaneously is just as remote as that of
everything turning out as expected.
Another common approach to providing added
perspective on reality is sensitivity analysis. Forecasters
vary key assumptions one at a time to assess their relative
impact on the expected outcome. A problem here is that
the assumptions are often varied by arbitrary amounts. The
more serious concern is that, in the real world, assumptions
do not veer from actual outcomes one at a time. Risks prowl
[6]
Financial -> Risk Analysis
> The process begins with identifying cause-and-effect factors,
assigning probabilities, then applying them to historical data.
Probability ranges are established on the basis of both
statistical analysis and subjective probability. They do not
need to be normal or symmetrical. Assuming the bellshaped normal probability curve means assuming an equal
likelihood of being too low and being too high in forecasting
a particular value. If a projected inflation rate deviates from
expectations, circumstances could cause the deviation to
be higher than the median projected outcome rather than
lower.
The RAP computer program transforms the ranges into
formal probability distributions. This liberates the nonstatistician from the need to appreciate the abstract
statistical depiction of probability, enabling stakeholders to
understand and participate in the process.
in packs — it is the impact of simultaneous differences
between assumptions and outcomes that is needed in
order to provide a realistic perspective on the riskiness of a
forecast.
RAP provides a way around these problems by measuring
the likelihood that an outcome will actually materialize.
The forecasters attach ranges (probability distributions)
to the forecasts of each input variable, allowing all inputs
to be varied simultaneously within their distributions.
The approach also recognizes interrelationships between
variables and their associated probability distributions.
RAP
The Risk Analysis Process involves four steps:
• Step 1 — Define the structure and logic of the
forecasting problem
• Step 2 — Assign estimates and ranges to each
variable and forecasting coefficient within the
forecasting structure and logic
• Step 3 — Engage experts and stakeholders in assessment of model and assumption risks
• Step 4 — Issue forecast risk analysis
First, panel members are invited to add variables and
hypothesized causal relationships that may be material, yet
are missing from the model. Then, the panelists are engaged
in a discursive protocol during which the frequentist-based
central estimates and ranges are modified according to their
subjective beliefs. This process is aided by an interactive
groupware computer tool that visualizes probability ranges
under alternative belief systems.
Step 1 — A structure and logic model depicts the variables
and cause-and-effect relationships that underpin the
forecasting problem at-hand. Although the structure and
logic model is written mathematically to facilitate analysis,
it is also depicted diagrammatically to permit stakeholder
scrutiny and modification in Step 3 of the process.
Step 2 — Each variable is assigned a central estimate and a
range to represent the degree of uncertainty. Special data
sheets are used to record the estimates. The first column
gives an initial median while the second and third columns
define an uncertainty range representing an 80 percent
confidence interval. This is the range in which there exists
an 80 percent probability of finding the actual outcome. The
greater the uncertainty associated with a forecast variable,
the wider the range.
RAP in Action
Talca to Chillán Toll Road, Chile — In 2005 the Talca-Chillán
Sociedad Concessionaria, S.A. (the Concessionaire) proposed
remediation financing for a bond issued in 1998 to finance
the Talca-Chillán toll road. This credit was impaired due to
revenues from tolls that were significantly below the original
forecast produced in 1998. The impacts of the 1999-2000
recession’s lingering unemployment, high gasoline prices
and a massive construction program to the north of the
Talca-Chillán concession were all factors that contributed
to this shortfall. In support of the remediation financing,
the Concessionaire and MBIA, a New York City-based bond
insurer, contracted HDR to perform an independent thirdparty risk analysis of the most recent traffic and revenue
forecasts and to develop a risk-adjusted forecast of the
project’s debt service coverage.
Through the risk analysis, HDR uncovered several factors
that were not explicitly included in the original traffic
forecast. For example, the impact of gasoline prices was not
a consideration in the analysis. The analysts built this factor
© Vince Streano
© Vince Streano
Step 3 — The uncertainty analysis developed in Step 2
is known as a frequentist probability. This represents the
measured frequency with which different outcomes occur
— i.e., the number of heads and tails after thousands of coin
tosses. Step 3 addresses subjective probability by assembling
an expert panel and determining their degree of belief that
an event will occur.
Step 4 — Once the frequentist and subjective probabilities
are defined, the final probability distributions are formulated
by the risk analyst. The two sets of information are combined
using a simulation technique (Monte Carlo analysis) that
allows each variable and forecasting coefficient to vary
simultaneously according to its associated probability
distribution. The end result is a central forecast, together
with estimates of the probability of achieving alternative
outcomes given uncertainties in underlying variables and
coefficients.
> The Risk Analysis Process paints a more detailed picture
of whether a proposed facility is financially stable.
[8]
[ the likelihood that all underlying
factors will shift in the same direction
simultaneously is just as remote as that
of everything turning out as expected
]
© Vince Streano
Using RAP, HDR determined that the area in question was a potential candidate for
toll-based financing. Future flows of toll revenues would likely be sufficient to cover
operating expenses and debt repayment over the long run. The financial strength and
marketability of the project was tested by:
• “Stressing” the project with tests utilized by the rating agencies to assess
bond ratings
• Reviewing the project, including the financial feasibility study, with capital
market participants such as bond insurers and major investment banks
> With the incorporation of probabilities, the risk analysis
process helps bond insurers determine not just whether
a project can generate the necessary revenue to repay
its financing, but whether it is likely to. The result can
be lower rates for the project sponsor.
when re-simulating the traffic and revenue forecast, especially the ramifications of upward spikes in gasoline prices.
In addition, historical data for the facility was extremely limited; therefore, the relationship between economic
growth and traffic growth could not be ascertained through statistical modeling. HDR developed risk-based
elasticity estimates using econometric techniques based on data from other toll roads in the region, and also
benchmarked these findings relative to other studies from the economic literature.
HDR simulated a new probability-based traffic and revenue forecast based on our own assessment of these and
other factors. The risk analysis revealed that, while there will always be volatility in revenues associated with the
facility, the long-term outlook was for robust traffic and revenue growth.
MBIA utilized the risk analysis in support of its internal decision-making about insuring the debt associated with the
financial transaction. Since this transaction, MBIA has utilized HDR’s risk analysis services on numerous transactions
involving demand-side risk.
Toll Road Feasibility in Southern United States — HDR was approached about assessing the feasibility of developing a
toll road in one of the fastest growing areas of the United States. As state and federal funds would not be available
for some time, the developer sponsored the feasibility study and worked with local government to explore whether
a public-private partnership was an option.
Through this process, the feasibility study was confirmed, and a major investment bank is
now working with the client to take the project to market.
State of Nuevo Leon, Mexico — The State of Nuevo Leon, Mexico, was planning a debt
offering and wanted to secure this debt based on revenues associated with motor
vehicle registration fees — a highly volatile revenue source. This would be one of the first
transactions of its kind in Mexico. The State engaged HDR to develop an independent risk-based forecast of revenues from
motor vehicle registration fees, and to develop the financial model for the transaction.
Using audited historical data on fee revenues, coupled
with economic data from the State, HDR developed
econometric models that identified the relationship
between demand and factors such as economic
growth and gasoline prices. Using the RAP process,
the analysts developed a model and simulated a
probability-based revenue forecast for the State. The
forecasts were reviewed with rating agencies in New
York and Mexico City. Based on the financial model
developed by HDR, registration fees were revealed to
be a robust long-term revenue source with less than
a 1 percent risk of receipts being insufficient to cover
debt and interest repayment.
The State was successful in the debt issuance. Since
this transaction, HDR has developed revenue forecasts
for more than a dozen other states and agencies in the
United States, Mexico and Canada in support of debt
issuances and ongoing operations. ->
AU T H O R S
> Dennis Bruce is a Senior Vice President with
HDR Decision Economics in Ottawa. Dennis has
developed innovative solutions in the areas
of forecasting, risk analysis, business case
development and cost benefit analysis. He
can be reached at [email protected].
> David Lewis, Ph.D., is HDR’s National Director of
Economics and Finance, based in Ottawa. Dr. Lewis
has 26 years of experience developing and applying
economic tools such as Cost-Benefit Analysis,
productivity measurement, the Risk Analysis
Process and public-private investment partnerships.
He can be reached at [email protected].
[10]
Design Standards
Aviation -> Facility Design
> Artist’s rendering shows the proposed 45,000-square-foot
terminal expansion at Harrisburg International Airport.
Renderings by Christopher Caillier, HDR
Help U.S. Customs Manage
International Airports
By May Yang, AIA, LEED AP, and Michael Miller, AIA, LEED AP, CSI-CDT
Renderings by Christopher Caillier, HDR
or upgraded facility that follows these standards will use
structural security, video security, technology and security
personnel in an integrated approach to control entry into
the United States.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported that 256,897 incoming international air passengers
were processed each day during fiscal year 2008, with some airports accommodating more than 2,000
people per hour. Though CBP is responsible for ensuring that each of the 1 million travelers who enter
the country by air, land or sea each day is legally permitted to do so, airports present a particularly unique
undertaking considering these security operations must take place in facilities not owned or operated
by the federal government. Recognizing the need to set uniform customs guidelines for international
airports, CBP contracted private-sector design firms, including HDR, to help develop the Airport Technical
Design Standards (ATDS).
Setting Standards
One of the greatest challenges in securing international airports is the fact that they are located within U.S.
boundaries, so proper care is required to manage travelers until they have been screened and cleared by
inspections officers. While international airports vary in size and passenger flow, the common elements
they all share are security procedures and controls.
The ATDS provides applicable design standards for all airports that accommodate travelers arriving from
or departing to foreign countries. The standards were created to both facilitate efficient movement of
people through the airport and control illegal entry into the United States. In doing so, the ATDS allows
the new integrated organizational structure of airport security to function as “one face at the border.”
The new ATDS document makes it easier to implement universal procedures and controls by providing
programmatic and spatial layout requirements for all federal inspection services (FIS) facilities. The
standards cover wall and ceiling design, sterile corridors, signage, processing areas and booths, secondary
inspection areas, holding rooms, remote monitoring control rooms and security requirements. They also
incorporate airport operations for baggage handling and passenger movement. The final design of a new
space for servicing two Group III aircraft (e.g.,
Boeing 737) or a single Group V aircraft (e.g.,
Boeing 747). There also are provisions for
the future build-out of concession spaces,
including restaurants and retail areas.
Development of the Airport Technical Design Standards
required a tremendous amount of research and work-flow
processing. Architects worked with enforcement officials
at Customs and Border Protection, and charettes were
conducted to acquire a full understanding of the port-ofentry business process. Work-flow analysis was required
to assure the passenger and baggage flow was adequate
to process arriving passengers with minimal wait times.
The final document blends architectural and engineering
expertise with current laws and regulations involving portof-entry operations.
Standards Applied: Harrisburg International Airport
The Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority (SARAA)
is considering a 45,000-square-foot terminal expansion with
FIS facilities at Harrisburg International Airport in Harrisburg,
Pa. Based on HDR’s involvement in developing the new
ATDS and past experience working with aviation facilities,
SARAA contracted HDR to provide concept design and cost
estimating services for the new Harrisburg FIS facility.
HDR worked with airport personnel and CBP representatives
during the design and planning process, and solicited input
from each of the stakeholders to help ensure that the needs
and requirements of all parties were properly addressed.
The proposed terminal expansion would house the airportrelated functions of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
and includes dual-use hold rooms, a CBP coordination
and processing center, administrative and support offices,
baggage claim devices with secondary baggage X-ray and
screening areas. Two new international gates would provide
As part of the planning process, HDR
prepared a LEED audit that included
recommendations for various sustainable
design solutions and information on how
the airport could achieve LEED certification
for the expansion. The project team also
developed an overall design schedule
and a comprehensive work plan for the
expansion.
Outlook
Despite current economic challenges, international air travel
continues to grow. Even as domestic passenger numbers
dipped from 2007 to 2008, the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics reported the number of passengers traveling into
and out of the United States rose by more than 877,000.
What the numbers say is that there is an ever-increasing
need for expertise in airport planning and design.
HDR applied its knowledge of aviation facilities and airport
operations to help U.S. Customs and Border Protection
develop the Airport Technical Design Standards that
are now being used at airports throughout the
country. Those standards were efficiently implemented
during design of the terminal expansion at Harrisburg
International Airport. ->
AU T H O R S
> May Yang, AIA, LEED AP, is a Project
Manager in HDR’s Alexandria, Va.,
office. May has 25 years of experience
in the architecture industry, including
taking projects from conceptual design
to construction management. She can be
reached at [email protected]
> Michael Miller, AIA, LEED AP, CSICDT, is a Project Manager in HDR’s Austin,
Texas, office. Michael has 21 years of
experience with a variety of project types,
including commercial, transportation and
aviation facilities. He can be reached at
[email protected].
[12]
HIGH SPEED RAIL
Following years of planning, public debate and several
false starts, the United States is poised to implement
a comprehensive high speed rail network connecting
major cities throughout multiple regions of the
country. A vision has emerged that maximizes the
efficiency and capacity of our existing rail network,
complements air and automobile travel, unifies the
country and promotes safe, energy efficient and
environmentally responsible transportation choices
to large portions of the population. Congress and
the new Administration, through passage of the
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of
2008 (PRIIA), as well as the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), have provided the
structure to begin implementation of this vision.
Definitions
First, it is necessary to lay out some definitions that
can help shape the understanding and debate over
where and how high speed rail may be implemented
in the United States. “True” or express high speed rail, as
implemented in Europe and Asia, reaches top speeds
in excess of 200 mph. It utilizes electrified trainsets
and requires segregated or sealed corridors, with
no intermingling of freight trains. To accommodate
the high speeds, it must be fully grade-separated
(i.e., no at-grade crossings with other modes) and
have exclusive right-of-way with fairly restrictive
requirements as to curvature and grades. The French
TGV service is representative of this type of system,
and the proposed California High Speed Rail network
is being planned for these types of speeds.
Regional high speed rail provides somewhat slower
speeds — 110 mph to perhaps 150 mph — and may
utilize either electrified or non-electrified trainsets.
Segregation from freight operations and a gradeseparated corridor are the norm. Through the use of
tilt train technology, high speeds can be achieved
on right-of-way with sharper curves than designed
for express high speed rail. Amtrak’s Acela service
between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston is
representative of this classification as are many of the
intercity trains operating overseas.
Coming to a
Corridor Near You?
By Dale Muellerleile, P.E.
[13]
> Proven technology, and an ever-increasing sensitivity to air quality,
emissions, noise and other environmental considerations combine to
favor electrified trainsets for speeds above 125 mph.
Incremental or emerging high speed rail includes
passenger train speeds up to 110 mph. While
passenger rail service at speeds up to 110 mph is
not incompatible with freight service within a shared
corridor (if not shared track), there remain significant
challenges with that approach. Current signal system/
Transit -> High Speed Rail
equipment, maintenance and regulatory constraints
generally limit freight speeds in the United States to 79
mph. While higher passenger train speeds on the same
corridor may be possible with limited civil improvements, a
shared corridor requires compatibility of the signal systems,
meaning that passenger speeds above 79 mph on a freight
corridor require upgrading of the freight system as well —
a costly, if not insurmountable requirement.
Furthermore, insurance and liability issues, limited capacity
for additional trains, limited right-of-way for additional
tracks and higher levels of track maintenance are some
of the issues causing legitimate concern by the freight
carriers regarding when, where and under what operating
conditions they might be willing to allow passenger
service. While operations up to 110 mph do not require a
fully grade-separated corridor, enhanced protection such
as four-quadrant gates are required, and crossings should
be eliminated whenever possible. Numerous studies are
ongoing for the introduction of incremental or emerging
high speed rail throughout the country. Amtrak and the
State of Washington currently operate/fund the Cascades
service between Vancouver, B.C., Seattle and Portland on a
shared corridor (including shared track) with BNSF Railway.
While current conditions limit passenger train speeds to 79
mph, capacity improvements are under study now that will
allow speeds up to 110 mph in the future.
Technology
Though there are other technologies such as magnetic
levitation (mag-lev), monorail and even more exotic
propulsion systems being studied and implemented around
the world, the focus of this article is on traditional “steelwheel-on-steel-rail” technology.
> Amtrak’s Acela service between Washington, D.C., New York
and Boston is representative of regional high speed rail.
The availability of proven technology,
as well as an ever-increasing sensitivity
to air quality, emissions, noise and
other environmental considerations
combine to favor, if not require, the
choice of electrified trainsets for
speeds above 125 mph. At slower
speeds, the use of diesel or dieselelectric equipment may allow
considerable cost savings related to
electrifying an existing corridor. The
use of tilt equipment — trains that,
through active or passive technology
allow the car body to compensate
for the effects of lateral forces as a
vehicle negotiates a curve — allows
higher speeds through existing track
curves than conventional equipment.
In addition to providing a higher level
of comfort and safety on curves, tilt
technology can play a critical role in
reducing travel times.
Both the Amtrak Acela equipment
used in the Northeast Corridor and the
Talgo equipment used in the Pacific
[ for the end operator of the system,
as well as for the traveling public, the
real key is not maximum speed
but average speed
]
Northwest Corridor use tilt technology.
Depending on the existing track
geometry, tilt technology can provide
speed improvements of as much as
20 percent over non-tilt technology.
HDR’s engineers have extensive
experience in both corridors. We are
currently working with the State of
Washington on a 20-year incremental
high speed program to provide hourly
service between Seattle and Portland
with travel times of two and a half
hours, at speeds up to 110 mph.
© David Blazejewski
Challenges
Of course, much is made of the high
maximum speeds of the various
equipment choices, and a great deal
of engineering is focused on achieving
those speeds within a new or existing
corridor. But for the end operator of
the system, as well as for the traveling
public, the real key is not maximum
speed but average speed. Existing
corridors, and even the last few miles
of dedicated corridor in a dense
urban area, are likely to have a large
number of sharp curves and/or other
physical constraints (such as existing
bridges, grade crossings or available
right of way) that impose what are
referred to as “civil speed restrictions.”
These restrictions, even when of short
distances, greatly affect travel times.
[15]
By way of example, a speed restriction
of 30 mph on a very short stretch of
track in what might otherwise be 45
mph territory can have a significantly
higher travel time impact than a
much longer stretch of 90 mph
speed restrictions in an otherwise
125 mph zone. Speed and curve
“balancing” studies are required to
fully optimize travel times between
cities and ensure that limited funds for
capital improvements are spent most
effectively.
As important to travel time as track
and signal improvements are, perhaps
the most contentious issue regarding
the introduction of service from the
public’s perspective is the issue of
stations. This can quickly become the
be-all, end-all in terms of public and
political discourse surrounding new
service. The benefit of a local station
to communities along a proposed
corridor is immense. The promise of a
new, high-quality modal choice, along
with the potential for beneficial land
use development in the urban core,
makes for strong local pressure to add
or expand an existing station stop.
To be left, quite literally, standing by
the tracks as the train speeds by your
community is enough to derail public
support.
And while a case can be made that
an increase in the number of stations
on a corridor increases potential
riders, planners and policymakers
must wrestle with the fact that with
every station stop, overall corridor
travel times are increased. Increased
travel times reduce the advantage of
The other parameter that is often
overlooked is reliability. The “choice,”
or premium traveler who selects high
speed rail over air or automobile travel,
and will even pay a premium for the
service, desires reliability perhaps even
over speed. For the business traveler,
schedule reliability is ultimate. If he or
she can rely on the service to arrive
and depart at the scheduled time, they
will become regular patrons. If the
schedule, regardless of posted travel
times, is unreliable, they will seek out
other modes. This issue becomes most
pronounced when a corridor is shared
with freight trains or other commuter
service operated by competing
interests that may not give priority to
intercity trains.
Status
The federal government has identified
10 corridors for high speed rail service
in the United States. Over the past
decade, states and regions have made
investments in planning studies,
conducted environmental studies
and, in limited areas, introduced
new or re-established service. These
plans have been both ambitious, as
with the Florida, Texas and California
High Speed Rail Initiatives, and more
modest, such as the Cascades service
in Washington state.
While the Texas and Florida projects
stalled, at least temporarily, California
has moved ahead with an ambitious
program to connect San Francisco,
Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego
and other major population centers.
After completing a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) and beginning work on Corridor
EIS’s and preliminary engineering,
California received voter support in
the form of $9.95 billion in approved
bonding to advance the project.
[17]
© David Honan
high speed rail over automotive and
other modes of travel, and will reduce
volume among “choice” riders.
With the passage of both PRIIA and
ARRA, federal funding is being made
available to advance high speed rail
throughout the country. Efforts are
underway in all the defined corridors
to advance previous studies and/or
jump-start construction of incremental
improvements toward the larger goal
of expanded service, both incremental
service at speeds up to 110 mph and
express service with speeds of 200
mph or higher. President Obama has
spoken often of his commitment
to developing a high speed rail
network as a core part of his vision for
upgrading our overall transportation
network. His High Speed Rail Strategic
Plan, announced on April 16, 2009,
emphasized that commitment and
encouraged ready-to-go projects that
encompass the full range of passenger
rail services.
After years of inaction or indifference,
federal funding for high speed rail is
becoming a reality. Funding for Amtrak
has been included as part of the
federal stimulus program; additional
funding is expected as part of the
next transportation authorization.
Americans are embracing the need
for alternative transportation choices
and for cleaner, greener technologies
as alternatives to both automobile and
air travel congestion.
Operations
Currently the Federal Railroad
Administration is soliciting proposals
from interested parties to design,
build, operate, maintain and finance
high speed rail corridors throughout
the country. The proposals can
include steel-wheel-on-steel-rail or
other technologies and seek to create
partnerships with private operators,
state commissions, Amtrak and the
Class 1 Railroads to develop viable
operating plans that can bring high
speed rail in this country to a level at
or above the worldwide state of the art
in passenger transportation.
> The Cascades service, operated by Amtrak and the State of Washington, is being studied
for capacity improvements that would increase maximum speed from 79 to 110 mph.
Funds available through PRIIA and
ARRA provide additional opportunities
for public-private partnerships to
develop and construct intercity and
commuter rail networks. Competition
for funding will be intense, and
advocates of passenger rail service
are optimistic that additional funds
will flow from both state and federal
sources.
Conclusion
After decades of studies and planning,
the United States is poised to join the
world in the construction of true high
speed rail. The public demand for
alternative transportation choices as
well as cleaner, more energy efficient modes should ensure
continued growth in awareness and support for this critical
technology.
HDR has been a leader in high speed rail planning and
design for over a decade. We have conducted planning
studies and environmental documentation for projects in
California, Chicago, Washington state, Florida and Nevada,
among others. We are currently providing planning and final
design services to the State of Washington for incremental
speed and capacity improvements in the Pacific Northwest
Corridor (Cascades) service, and environmental and
preliminary engineering for a section of the California High
Speed Rail network. Our engineers have experience working
with Amtrak on improvements to the Northeast Corridor
for the introduction of the high speed Acela Express
service. We can provide expertise in all aspects of planning,
environmental, civil and systems engineering, operations
planning and program management for high speed rail. ->
AU T H O R S
> Dale Muellerleile, P.E., is HDR’s
National Director for Transit Engineering.
Dale has extensive experience with
transportation facilities for high speed
rail, commuter railroads, light rail transit
systems and freight rail. He can be reached
at [email protected].
An
INTELLIGENT ANSWER
f o r t h e N a t i o n’s Tr a f f i c S i g n a l C o n t r o l P r o b l e m
By Matt Selinger, P.E., PTOE, HDR; and Reggie Chandra, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE, Rhythm Engineering
Unnecessary delays and congestion ... The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that more than 75 percent of
the country’s 330,000 traffic signals are operating with outdated or uncoordinated signal timing plans, causing as much as 10
percent of the country’s traffic delays. Maybe that is worth repeating — the traffic signals we use to control traffic flows
and maintain safety are responsible for unnecessarily causing 10 percent of additional delays on our roadways!
To put this into perspective, the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 Urban Mobility Report showed that
roadway congestion in the 437 largest U.S. cities leads to 4.2 billion hours of sitting in traffic and 2.9
billion gallons of wasted fuel per year — equivalent to the fuel produced from 48 fully loaded crude
oil supertankers. That adds up to a total cost of $78 billion annually. Most people would agree that
potentially slashing 10 percent of a $78 billion congestion bill would be a good thing — especially since
the technology to make it happen is readily available.
Cause and Effect
There are two underlying issues at work here. First, the majority of traffic signals in the United States
do not receive regular timing updates. Most of us know the reasons. It is time-consuming to collect
the necessary data, which means either dedicating staff to complete the work or hiring consultants. With
dwindling budgets, these efforts usually fall to the bottom of agency to-do lists or are removed to focus
resources on more pressing needs.
Second, most traffic signals don’t adapt to changing conditions. The majority of signal systems
operate with only a few timing plans that don’t adequately address daily variations in
[20]
Technical Excellence -> Intelligent Transportation Systems
> FHWA estimates that more than 75 percent of the
country’s 330,000 traffic signals are operating
with outdated or uncoordinated signal timing plans.
traffic flow. Just think how many times you have
waited through a red light while no opposing
traffic was present, or the times you sat through
multiple green lights just trying to work your
way up to an intersection. The bottom line is that
outdated timing plans, along with methods and
technologies that are 30 or more years old make
our signal systems ill-equipped to handle current
traffic demands.
A Better Way
What if there was a shift in technology that
allowed traffic signals to think and react like the
traffic officers of the 1920s? These traffic officers
would stand on a fixed platform in the street,
and from this position they could view the traffic
in each direction and make decisions on when
to change the traffic light they were manually
controlling. Their goal was simply to keep traffic
moving.
A handful of technologies have been designed
to optimize traffic flow in an automated way;
however, many suffer from functional limitations
or require substantial investment. But a new
technology developed by Rhythm Engineering
called InSync™ overcomes those issues and
provides an adaptive traffic control alternative
that costs about the same as a high-end video
detection system. HDR is working with Rhythm
Engineering to implement its adaptive traffic
control system in multiple communities. Current
installations have already improved traffic flow
by 20 to 40 percent over conventionally timed
signals. Considering the lack of funds available for
infrastructure capacity improvements these days,
having the opportunity to decrease congestion
by as much as 40 percent without the need for
widening existing roadways is intriguing, to say
the least.
InSync at Work
InSync utilizes robotics and artificial intelligence
principles to detect vehicles and adjust signal
timing and minimize stops along roadways. It
includes a newly developed video detection/
data collection system and optimizer unit that is
installed at each intersection. When deployed, the
system “sees” real-time traffic, communicates with
upstream and downstream intersections and
automatically synchronizes the signals to optimize
traffic flow along arterials while simultaneously
minimizing side street delay. The system eliminates the need
for traditional timing plans. InSync’s artificial intelligence
processors are networked to pass data in a distributed
network to enable the system to “think ahead” and optimize
signal changes based on real-time
demand. The system is not limited
by analog architecture such as cycle
lengths, splits and offset to a fixed
point in the cycle. There is no transition
during signal operations and no hold
on coordinated phases which causes
unwanted side street delay.
billion for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Grant (EECBG) program, which provides federal assistance
to agencies that reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions.
FHWA’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
program also provides funding for
projects that improve air quality
and even includes provisions for
non-attainment and former nonattainment areas.
[ most traffic signals
don’t adapt
to changing conditions
The optimization unit utilizes two elements to determine
signal state changes. Inside the optimizer, a global timing
routine focuses on minimizing stops along the main street.
At the same time, a local optimizer program looks for
opportunities to serve the side streets whenever there are
openings in main street traffic. This optimization architecture
results in significant reductions in stops along the main
arterial and improved side street service — two goals that
are generally thought of as mutually exclusive by the traffic
engineering profession.
One of the key features of this innovative technology is its
compatibility with almost all industry-standard controllers
and cabinets. The system is very modular and simply plugs
into existing controllers as an overlay and provides inputs or
“calls” to the controllers that are set to respond to InSync. It
is also compatible with most any central system software, so
there is no need to discard existing hardware or software in
order to implement adaptive traffic control.
Benefits Realized
How would you feel if you could reduce congestion,
emissions, fuel consumption, travel times and the number
of stops on your busiest arterial roadways? What if crashes
were reduced and motorist frustration was lower in your
community? From installations in the Midwest we are
seeing a range of 20 to 40 percent reductions in travel times
and stops.
One of the reasons HDR is engaged with this technology is
its potential to provide a sustainable return on transportation
infrastructure investment. InSync is estimated to reduce fuel
consumption by 5,000 gallons per year, per intersection
based upon intersections serving 25,000 vehicles per day.
This fuel use reduction results in a decrease of CO2 emissions
of 97,000 pounds per intersection annually and opens
InSync projects to U.S. Department of Energy and FHWA
funds aimed at lowering carbon emissions. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes $3.2
]
The Missouri Department of
Transportation deployed InSync
on 12 signals (2.5 miles) along
Route 291 in Lee’s Summit, one of its problem corridors with
unpredictable traffic flow variations. Preliminary studies
reveal that InSync reduced travel time by up to 35 percent
and stops by up to 94 percent while increasing speed by up
to 30 percent.
Other agencies that are deploying InSync include the city of
Lenexa, Kan.; city of Little Rock, Ark.; city of Joplin, Mo.; city
of Rogers, Ark.; Pennsylvania Department of Transportation;
Arkansas Highway Transportation Department; city of
Overland Park, Kan.; and city of Leawood, Kan.
Learn More
HDR has the capability to simulate the operation of the
InSync Adaptive Traffic Control system in VISSIM to provide
a detailed preview of the benefits the system would have
over conventional systems. This analysis would support
applications for project funding for programs like the CMAQ
and EECBG. Go to www.hdrinc.com/traffic and register for
the Webinar “InSync at Work” to learn more. ->
AU T H O R S
> Matt Selinger, P.E., PTOE, is the Section
Manager for Traffic in HDR’s Omaha office.
Matt is experienced with projects involving
traffic operations, transportation planning,
roadway and traffic design, public
involvement and peer review. He can be
> Reggie Chandra, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE,
is a Principal Engineer with Rhythm
Engineering in Lenexa, Kan. Rhythm
Engineering provides solutions for
design and deployment of Intelligent
Transportation Systems.
[22]
Private Land Development -> Roadway Design
Ortega Highway (SR 74) traverses the scenic areas of rural Southern Orange County, Calif., connecting
the city of San Juan Capistrano in the east and Riverside County in the west. Along the way, it passes
through Cleveland National Forest and Rancho Mission Viejo (RMV), a 127-year-old cattle ranch and
development company. Ortega Highway already serves as a major commuter route, and traffic was
expected to increase significantly over the next several years. With the addition of a new high school
just outside San Juan Capistrano city limits and an 8,000-home development being planned by RMV,
local agencies began exploring a project to widen a two-mile section of the highway from two lanes
to four.
N AV I G AT I N G T H E
ORTEGA HIGHWAY
The overall widening plan stretches from Calle Entradero in the city of San Juan Capistrano
to approximately 2,000 feet east of the Antonio Parkway / La Pata Avenue intersection in an
unincorporated area of Orange County. About one mile of the proposed project area lies within the
city limits of San Juan Capistrano, and the other mile is under County of Orange jurisdiction with
Rancho Mission Viejo being the sole property owner adjacent to the County’s portion.
WIDENING PROJECT
By Lan Saadatnejadi, P.E.
The County of Orange, City of San Juan Capistrano, Caltrans and RMV collaborated together to
implement the widening project in a manner that preserved the ranchland and country feel of the
surrounding communities. As discussions between all the project stakeholders progressed, officials
with the County, the public sponsor of this project, and Caltrans requested that RMV facilitate design
of the County segment. HDR worked directly for RMV to develop the widening concepts and prepare
the preliminary engineering and final construction bid documents for this complex project.
> Features such as landscaped medians help soften
the look of the highway, in keeping with the scenic, rural nature of Southern Orange County.
[23]
© Images created by Focus 360
Expanding Ortega Highway
A 2005 study showed that Ortega Highway served 14,000 vehicles per day as the primary commuter
road between Orange and Riverside counties. Overall, traffic is expected to reach a maximum of
42,000 vehicles per day by 2030. Peak-hour traffic conditions were already operating at congested
levels in some segments, creating a Level of Service (LOS) of F-3. As a result, daily peak back-up could
extend for a couple of miles. The project would widen the roadway from two lanes to four and add
bicycle lanes, easing congestion and improving traveler safety for years to come.
RMV understood the highway expansion project was necessary for the continued growth of Orange
County, but their primary concern was that the project be done responsibly. Since 1882, members of
the Richard O’Neill, Sr. family have operated Rancho Mission Viejo, representing a significant portion
of land ownership in Southern Orange County. The original land holding encompassed more than
230,000 acres extending from the foothills of the Saddleback Mountains to the city of Oceanside.
The company has a proud tradition of cattle ranching, open space preservation, thoughtful land
management, responsible development and community service. In context with the growth and
development of communities in Southern Orange County, RMV has cooperated and coordinated
through the years with local agencies for improvement of regional infrastructure projects. Therefore,
it was important that the aesthetics of the land as well as cultural and biological resources be
balanced with transportation needs.
In addition to RMV, Orange County and Caltrans, the City of San Juan Capistrano and the
Capistrano Unified School District also had a stake in the project. Since half of the two-mile
widening project lies within San Juan Capistrano city limits, the City wanted to be sure its segment
proposed conditions
© Images created by Focus 360
existing conditions
[ residents and the ranch
operators wanted the
highway to blend in with the
rural look of its environment
meshed with the
portion that is
in the County’s
jurisdiction
(the
Rancho
Mission
Viejo portion). The
City’s portion is still
under preparation
of an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) by Caltrans. Also, the school district was
building a new high school on the south side of Ortega
Highway within the County portion and needed to be sure
the roadway would mitigate traffic impacts in and out of
the facility. The ranch collaborated with all four agencies
to complete the regulatory, environmental and financial
requirements, with HDR serving as their design consultant.
Rancho Mission Viejo recognized HDR’s experience working
for public agencies, particularly Caltrans, as the key to
navigating through this unfamiliar territory.
Design Considerations
The local community put extraordinary emphasis on
aesthetic treatments related to the widening project. Much
of RMV’s open land is filled with scenic, rolling hills and
open meadows and the highway leads into a large county
park and the Cleveland National Forest that serve as major
recreational areas for Southern Orange County. Residents
and the ranch operators wanted the highway to blend in
with the rural look of its environment as much as possible.
]
Incorporating trees and
other
landscaping
features was desirable
from their standpoint,
but those components
also had to meet
Caltrans’ standards for
safety and maintenance.
To reach an agreement, the roadway design team consulted
with RMV’s landscape architect to develop plans and then
presented those plans to Caltrans. Having experience
working on Caltrans projects, the roadway designers had
a good sense of how to package the proposal to meet
the highway department’s standards. For example, the
original two-lane bridge over San Juan Creek had concrete
barriers. The plain concrete walls didn’t fit with the aesthetic
goals of the client, so the landscape architect created a
more elaborate treatment for the barriers. Knowing that a
completely new type of barrier would have to go through
potentially years of crash testing and analysis, HDR worked
with Caltrans to identify a variety of barriers that had already
been approved for use in other parts of the state and took
those options back to the landscape architect. Together,
they were able to find a compromise that met the aesthetic
goals of the project and Caltrans’ standards.
Because of the hilly nature of the area, in some sections it
was necessary to build retaining walls on one side of the
> Widening Ortega Highway from two lanes to four
and adding bicycle lanes will ease congestion and
improve traveler safety for years to come.
highway and noise walls on the other. Residents were concerned the result would be an urbanized, tunnel-looking corridor.
The roadway team collaborated through a workshop process with the landscape architect to soften the look of the retaining
walls using an aesthetic treatment and to design sound walls that utilize a clear acrylic glass on the upper portion so residents
could retain their existing view.
Coordinating Between Private and Public Sectors
Considering the number of stakeholders and the challenge of meeting both the aesthetic and transportation improvement
goals of this project, the stakeholders have been complimentary of how everyone worked together. From the onset, the
process followed a routine pattern of identifying constraints, developing a plan to address them and then collaborating with
other stakeholders to adapt that plan to everyone’s needs. The first test was improving the intersection where the new school
was being built. Even with a small window to work in, the intersection was done in time for the school opening.
Monthly project development meetings provided a forum for all the stakeholders to keep up with the project status as
well as any changes to the design. The design team also communicated daily with the agencies involved in the project.
Working with a private developer, the plans changed more than what is customary for a state highway project. Still, the
open communication helped avoid friction between the private and public entities who, in the long run, shared a common
goal — to create an improved highway that met the needs of residents and respected the scenic landscape. Caltrans’ staff
accommodated plan changes by expediting some of the permitting processes, and Rancho Mission Viejo adapted its designs
to suit Caltrans’ standards.
Project Status
Improvements began on the County’s portion
of Ortega Highway earlier this year and should
be completed in the fall of 2010. Construction
was phased to allow this vital roadway to remain
operational throughout the 18-month schedule.
Caltrans currently is working on the required
environmental clearance process for the City’s
segment of the project. ->
AU T H O R S
> Lan Saadatnejadi, P.E., is HDR’s Southern
California Area Manager for Alternative Delivery
and Program Management. She spent 16 years with
Caltrans, managing projects and leading an office
of 60 people before joining HDR in 2005. Lan can be
[26]
© Vince Streano
The Evolution of
Toll Technology
By Saïd Majdi
> Today’s toll facilities incorporate cashless, electronic tolling
technology to increase throughput and decrease congestion.
[27]
Ever been stuck in traffic and wished you could pay to drive
in a lane that was actually moving? As congestion problems
on U.S. roadways increase, more and more people are
finding themselves in that very situation. If current trends
continue, they may just get their wish.
collect tolls is evolving, too. Stop-and-go tolling is becoming
a thing of the past as electronic, cashless technologies are
making it possible to convert existing infrastructure to
tollways with minimal investment and little or no additional
right-of-way.
The concept of today’s toll lanes is the latest in a long history
of direct user fees on transportation facilities. Toll roads can
be traced back thousands of years, certainly well before
automobiles began clogging highways. As government
funds for transportation improvements shrink, we may even
see a day when every inch of the American transportation
network is subject to some type of toll. The way toll operators
The History of Modern Tolling
To better understand where toll technologies and practices
are going, perhaps it is best to look at where they have
been. Figure 1 depicts the evolution of tolling in the United
States. Tolling began with manned toll booths which
required vehicles to come to a complete stop so travelers
could hand over a prescribed toll to a toll booth attendant.
This type of operation allowed a throughput
of about 300 vehicles per hour per lane.
The toll plazas were costly to construct and
required substantial right-of-way to channel
Manual
vehicles in and out of the facility as well as an
administration building to house the money
Automatic
Coin Machine
collection operations.
Figure 1 - The Evolution of Tolling
MAN
ACM
Electronic
Toll Collection
ETC
Open
Road Tolling
ORT
ML/MA
Phase I
[29]
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Phase V
Managed Lanes
Managed Areas
Automatic coin machines (ACM) introduced
in the 1960s doubled throughput to 600
vehicles per hour per lane and reduced the
need for manual handling of money at the
toll lane. Unfortunately, the design of the toll
facility still required tremendous right-of-way
for channeling lanes.
Roadway -> Tolling
© Vince Streano
© Vince Streano
> Open road tolling allows a throughput rate
of up to 2,300 vehicles per lane per hour.
> With electronic tolling, drivers establish an account with
the toll authority, affix a toll tag to their vehicle and
drive through the toll facility without stopping.
The electronic toll collection (ETC) revolution reached the United States in 1989. With ETC, drivers could
establish an account with the toll authority, affix a toll tag to their vehicle and drive through the toll facility
without stopping or having to scramble for exact change. The first ETC systems increased throughput
to 1,800 vehicles per hour per lane and reduced operating costs—making them very attractive to toll
operators. The new toll facilities combined manual, ACM and ETC, but still restricted traffic.
The Now of Modern Tolling
With each new phase in toll technology, the clear goal has been increasing throughput. Along the way,
the evolution in tolling also has reduced operational costs and the amount of right-of-way needed for
collection sites. Today, open road tolling (ORT) allows drivers to pay tolls while traveling at highway
speed. Throughput has jumped to 2,300 or more vehicles per hour per lane and physical barriers and
channeling lanes are being replaced with a simple gantry over the roadway to support overhead
detectors and a roadside cabinet to house other electronic equipment. Vehicles with a toll tag are
recorded into the system, and the trip is logged to the user’s account. Vehicles that do not have a tag are
processed using video enforcement.
The success of ORT is driving expansive toll plazas out of existence. Many toll authorities have announced
planned conversions of their toll operations to cashless, all-electronic toll collection. Others are still
studying the impact of going to cashless operations.
© Terry Halsey
© Vince Streano
> Blending excess capacity in existing HOV lanes with tolling by allowing single-occupancy
vehicles to access these lanes for a fee is being explored as a means to reduce congestion.
> The evolution of open road
tolling technologies is leading
more toll authorities to cashless,
all-electronic toll collection.
Tolling to Manage Traffic Demand
The trend in tolling technology,
clearly, has been to free up traffic
and make more efficient use of
infrastructure. The most recent phase
in that evolution is the managed
traffic approach. Many metropolitan
areas have already implemented other
types of traffic demand management
tools such as high-occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lanes. These are managed lanes
by offering access to a higher level of
service to those who opt to carpool.
HOV programs around the country
have been successful, but most have
excess capacity.
To further reduce congestion in
general-purpose lanes, there has been
a blending of the excess capacity in
the HOV lanes with tolling by offering
HOV lane use to single-occupancy
vehicles
(SOV)
for a fee. Hence,
the conversion of
HOV lanes to HOT
(high-occupancy
toll) lanes, where
SOV users pay a
toll and HOV users
go free or pay
a toll at a discounted rate. To attract
drivers to use HOT lanes, a desirable
level of service is maintained by using
variable toll rates to control demand
[ the managed traffic approach isn’t
just helping to uncork the bottleneck;
it’s actually starting to generate revenue
where access is restricted to vehicles
with two or more or three or more
occupants. The intent is to reduce
congestion in general-purpose lanes
[31]
]
— i.e., tolls at peak hours are usually
higher than at other times.
The managed traffic approach isn’t just
helping to uncork the bottleneck; it’s
actually starting to generate revenue.
What began as a congestion mitigation
measure is now generating funding for
transportation infrastructure projects.
The early success of this concept has
prompted countries around the world
to extend the HOT lane approach from
a managed lane to a managed area,
using it to combat traffic congestion
in central business districts. Drivers
in Singapore, London and Stockholm
now pay a toll to enter the city center.
The Future of Modern Tolling
As toll technology has evolved, a wide
range of tools have become available
to help intelligently increase capacity
and create solutions to the growing
problem of congestion. But in the
battle against traffic demand, the
use of technology can only support
well-planned
transportation
infrastructure construction projects.
Managed lanes and managed areas
are steps in that direction, but the
demand-supply gap has grown
extreme for many transportation
facilities.
The next step is finding the
means to substantially improve
existing infrastructure. The biggest
obstacle is acquiring the funds to
do so. The Federal-Aid Highway
Program, which provides funding
to states for the construction and
improvement of urban and rural
highway infrastructure, is financed
from the proceeds of motor fuel
and other highway-related excise
taxes deposited in the Federal
Highway Trust Fund. But stagnation
and even decline in revenues from
the fuel tax have left it severely
under-funded.
Fortunately,
private
ventures
and public-private partnerships (P3) are emerging as an
alternative source of funding. This is changing the funding
environment because when private entities invest in a
project, they understandably expect a return on their
investment; therefore, new roads, bridges and tunnels may
not be free to use without some type of user charge. This
new funding environment defines a whole new role for
toll technology. As toll technology enters the next phase,
it becomes the enabler of the successful implementation
of transportation infrastructure projects by facilitating the
collection of direct user fees.
A discussion has been ongoing regarding whether the
motor fuel tax is the right way to finance the Federal-Aid
Highway Program. Some have proposed a tax based on
vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). In fact, two commissions
recently submitted reports to Congress stating that VMT is
a promising option that needs to be explored as a source
for future funding. Both the National Surface Transportation
Policy and Revenue Study Commission and the National
Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission
stated that the fuel tax system is failing to provide adequate
revenue to keep up with capacity demands. Converting to a
VMT-based funding mechanism would take some time and
require capital investment, but the return on investment is
an equitable, long-term infrastructure funding solution.
A practical approach to implementing a nationwide VMT
system would be to use global positioning system (GPS)
technology, similar to the technology used in navigation
devices found in many newer vehicles. GPS has the potential
to deliver a cost-effective means of instituting VMT since it
would not require any infrastructure for toll collection. This
technology makes it conceivable to have drivers in the nottoo-distant future pay a direct user charge for miles traveled.
Interoperability is Key
In meantime, because existing toll roads developed as
isolated entities, there wasn’t initially much concern about
interoperability. Moving forward, to make any nationwide
deployment successful, interoperability is absolutely
essential. To that end, the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) is guiding the toll industry toward a standard
based on 5.9 GHz Dedicated Short Range Communications
(DSRC) technology. This emerging technology provides
high-speed, high-data-rate and secure vehicle-roadside
mobile communications, and meets the needs of dozens
of intelligent transportation systems applications, including
electronic payment services.
Conclusion
From early manual collection toll facilities to open road
tolling and managed areas, toll technology has played a
vital role in our surface transportation system by improving
safety, mobility and efficiency. More toll authorities are
planning to migrate to cashless, all-electronic toll collection,
resulting in the disappearance of expansive plazas and
allowing right-of-way to be reclaimed for other use. Existing
HOV lanes are being converted to HOT lanes, and future
projects will likely include planned HOT lanes or some other
tolling system for all the lanes.
Who knows, in a few years, you may no longer have to wish
you could pay to drive in a faster-moving lane; your wish
will have come true. ->
AU T H O R S
> Saïd Majdi is HDR’s National Director of
Toll Technology, based in Dallas. Saïd has
15 years of practical experience in managing
toll system design, development and
integration programs. He can be reached
at [email protected].
Creative Approach
to Keep
NISMO
Operational
By Brent Moore, P.E., Kevin Matakis, E.I.T.,
and Michael Krieber, P.E.
> Workers install helical piers at the face of the wharf to provide additional axial capacity lost due to timber pile decay.
[33]
© Keith Philpott
Once bustling with the activity of building America’s battleships, the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard now serves
a much quieter mission as the home of several decommissioned vessels. The facility dates to 1917, when the
Navy’s first official shipyard relocated from Southwark, Philadelphia, to its current site at the confluence of
the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers. The Navy constructed ships at the Philadelphia shipyard until 1970 and
continued ship conversion and upgrade operations there until September 1996. Today, the facility hosts the
© Keith Philpott
© Keith Philpott
Maritime -> Pier Rehabilitation
> A welder makes repairs to the existing ship fender system.
Naval Surface Warfare Center Ship Systems
Engineering Station and the Naval Inactive
Ship Maintenance Office (NISMO), which
is responsible for storing decommissioned
vessels.
To ensure the facility continues to operate
safely and effectively, the Navy retained
Triton Marine Construction and HDR
Engineering, Inc. through a design-build
contract to rehabilitate approximately
8,200 linear feet of timber pile-supported
wharfs and the 1,150-foot timber and steel
pile-supported Pier 4. The RFP identified
repair of the Pier 4 concrete deck as
the Navy’s highest priority to allow ship
decommissioning operations to continue
safely and efficiently. Pier 4’s current
mission is the decommissioning of aircraft
carriers USS John F. Kennedy (currently
moored along the downstream face of the
pier) and the USS Saratoga.
The estimated original service life of Pier
4 was likely in the range of 30 to 40 years.
The extended 50- to 60-year life can likely
be contributed to periodic maintenance,
structural redundancies that allow loads to
spread to other elements, and safety factors
which have essentially been exhausted.
Now, after decades of steadfast service,
the shipyard is showing signs of its age.
Analysis and Condition
Following initial visual investigations of
the deck surface by the Navy and the
design-build team, it was determined that
additional in-depth investigations and
structural analyses should be performed
to gather quantitative and qualitative
answers to the reasons for the apparent
deterioration of the pier. In addition,
defining safe operational parameters for
the decommissioning contractor was a key
concern.
Pier 4 at NISMO is an 1,150-foot-long by
100-foot-wide pier on the north shore of
the Delaware River. The original structure,
constructed in 1918, comprises 100
timber pile bents with more than 3,000
untreated timbers supporting a concrete
superstructure. A 1969 addition features
17 steel H-pile bents at the end of the
pier. A hammerhead crane foundation
near the center of the pier consists of
timber piles and soil fill enclosed at the
perimeter by reinforced concrete sheet
> The Base Option recommends
constructing a 16-foot-wide
roadway with two 40-foot
by 44-foot crane lift areas
to rehabilitate the Pier 4 deck.
The roadway would be placed
on a 34-foot-wide concrete
cap supported by concrete
piles, as shown in the
rendering on previous page.
piles. Miscellaneous repairs to the concrete portions of
the structure were made in 1940, 1950, 1980 and 1998.
Field investigations, laboratory testing and structural
analyses were performed from September 2008
through March 2009. The work consisted of visual
above- and below-water evaluations of Pier 4’s structural
system, petrographic analyses of concrete cores and
microbioligical analyses of the timber piling.
HDR analyzed the capacity of Pier 4 for various load
combinations and compared calculated remaining
strengths with the demands identified in the analyses.
Major components evaluated include timber and steel
foundation piles, concrete deck and beams and mooring
hardware. Strength evaluations of existing elements
were based on estimated properties of deteriorated
sections of the pier. Results of the field investigation and
laboratory testing have been extrapolated to estimate
the current condition of the entire pier.
Results
Considering the original construction materials, details
of the design and existing environment, Pier 4 has
performed admirably. But age and the evolution of
naval vessels demand that the facility be substantially
upgraded. The retiring aircraft carriers of today have
several times the wind surface area that naval vessels
did circa 1918; resulting in higher loads induced into the
structures of ports and harbors in which they call.
[36]
© Keith Philpott
features also was developed as was an
alternate option that features a wider
roadway.
Following are the options presented
to the Navy.
> A diver reports on the condition of timber
piling and the installation of new helical piers.
The current overall condition of Pier 4 is fair to poor and is comparable to other structures that have been
functioning in similar marine environments for the same amount of time. Some critical components were
determined to be in serious to poor condition, warranting repair, supplementation or complete replacement.
Most of the main pier components have lost a significant amount of their original structural capacity.
As a result, the condition assessment and subsequent analyses indicated Pier 4 does not meet Navy design
standards for a Type IV facility mooring of the USS John F. Kennedy alone, not including mooring loads from
additional vessels.
Under certain foreseeable circumstances and existing/planned uses, localized or global failure may occur. This
could include, but not be limited to, punching through the deck, settlement or excessive deflections of portions
of the structure, and, in more extreme cases, structural collapse. HDR recommended that existing use of heavy
land-based equipment be further restricted, if not eliminated.
Recommendations & Options
A traditional approach to restoring the pier to original capacities — completely demolishing the pier and
replacing with new construction — would cost in the range of $40 to $50 million. To accommodate a more
conservative budget while achieving the Navy’s mission for Pier 4, the design-build team developed nontraditional concepts for narrow deck travel corridors and crane lift areas, with mooring and breasting structures
placed within the pier’s existing footprint. The conceptual repairs were tailored to the Navy’s needs, providing a
functional facility meeting equipment live load requirements and capacity to withstand Type IV mooring loads
for the USS John F. Kennedy and the USS Saratoga.
Given the constraint that the inactive decommissioned aircraft carriers must remain in place, all construction
will have to be performed by land-based equipment. Since equipment will have to be placed on the existing
pier, construction will need to be carefully sequenced to accommodate the poor condition of the structure.
With these two key limitations, the design-build team proposed phased construction. Phase 1 consists of
constructing a roadway corridor down the center of the pier; Phase 2 involves constructing the mooring and
breasting structures from the roadway. Based on items the Navy had identified as desirable, a list of additional
Base Option, Phase 1 — A 16-foot-wide
roadway with two 40-foot by 44-foot
crane lift areas would be constructed
and selected steel H-pile repairs
conducted. The 16-foot roadway is to
be placed on a 34-foot-wide concrete
cap supported by concrete piles.
The piles will be installed through
holes cored through the deck which
are slightly larger than the piles. The
34-foot caps would provide a wide
footprint for crane outrigger use along
the length of the pier. (Use of outriggers
on the pile caps will be accomplished
by placing steel beams between the
caps and resting the outrigger pads on
the beams.) The two crane lift areas are
located near the middle of the pier but
can be placed elsewhere, if desired.
Selected steel pile repairs provide for
some live load capacity at the end of
the pier, although heavy crane use
would not be provided in the repair.
Concrete piles and caps were selected
to minimize corrosion and the need
for cathodic protection.
Base Option, Phase 2 — Phase 2 consists
of constructing nine mooring and two
breasting structures on each side of
the pier. The breasting structures will
be 70 feet long to match the aircraft
carrier mooring camels. They would be
constructed via the Phase 1 roadway.
A key conceptual feature is to provide
a concrete strut between opposing
breasting structures since battered
pile construction would be extremely
difficult with ships moored. This strut
design allows the resistance of the
opposing sides’ breasting structures
to be combined, decreasing the size
and number of piles needed on each
structure. The struts would be installed
during Phase 1 to a length that would
allow for easy connection to the
breasting structures during Phase 2.
Alternate Option, Phase 1 — The
alternative option includes a 40-footwide combination roadway and crane
lift area to be constructed along the
pier. Construction would be identical
to the 40-foot by 44-foot crane lift areas
in the Base Option. This alternative also
includes repairing all the steel piles to
bring the end of the pier back to its
original 900 psf live load capacity.
Additional Features — The following
items could be included with either
the Base Option or the Alternate
Option:
• Forklift access ramps (flat) to
the mooring and breasting
structures
• New bollards on top of the
breasting structures
•
•
•
•
Protective HDPE sleeves in the
splash zone on the steel piles in
the breasting and mooring
structures
Corrosion protection for the
repaired steel piles
Repaired concrete sheet pile at
the hammerhead crane
foundation
Demolition of as much of the
existing pier as possible
Summary
The Navy is currently evaluating the
options to determine how to proceed
with the rehabilitation and repair
project. As a result of the componenttype concept developed by the
design-build team, the client is able
to analyze the individual pieces and
identify the ones that best suit their
needs. An engineer for the Navy who
oversees the project said, “Their (HDR’s)
engineering insight has literally saved
the Navy millions of dollars that were
put back into the project for other
important work.” ->
AU T H O R S
> Brent Moore, P.E., is the Ports and Harbors Section Manager in HDR’s
Corpus Christi office. Brent is experienced in design, construction and
contract management of waterfront civil and structural projects
particularly with respect to design-build contracting methods.
He can be reached at [email protected].
> Kevin Matakis, E.I.T., is a Ports and Harbors Structural E.I.T. in HDR’s
Corpus Christi office. Kevin has experience with the design and analysis
of structures along waterfronts, particularly those involving interaction
between geotechnical and structural applications. He can be reached at
[email protected].
> Michael Krieber, P.E., is a Senior Project Manager in HDR’s Corpus
Christi office. Michael is a former port engineer with northern climate
expertise. He can be reached at [email protected].
[38]
NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
UPCOMING E VENTS
People
• Timothy K. Dougherty, P.E., has joined HDR as Director of Design-Build
for Transportation. He is based in the firm’s Salt Lake City office.
IBTTA – Incident Management, Safety, and Security
7/19 – 7/21.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Denver, CO
• Marty Joyce has been named North Central Area Transportation
Program Manager. Based in Chicago, Joyce provides leadership to all
transportation programs within the North Central Area.
•
Jeff Dailey has joined HDR as Chicago Department Manager. Dailey previously served as the assistant Executive Director for Project
Delivery at the North Texas Tollway Authority in Dallas and was also
the Chief Engineer at the Illinois Tollway from 2004 to 2007.
•
Kurt Reichelt, Vice President and Senior Project Manager in HDR’s
Portland office, has been elected to the Intermodal Operations
Committee of the Association of American Railroad’s Associate
Advisory Board.
Directions
AREMA Annual Conference and Expo
9/20 – 9/23.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Chicago, IL
Welcome to Transportation Delivered, a new publication from
HDR. In the past, we’ve shared how HDR works with clients to meet
transportation infrastructure needs through our BridgeLine, Rail Line,
TransitLine and TransportLine newsletters. Today, we are embarking
in a new direction. Transportation Delivered will showcase our entire
transportation program, highlighting how our talented and dedicated
staff work to provide comprehensive mobility solutions, whether by
land, sea or air. We hope you enjoy this first issue of
Transportation Delivered.
IHEEP 2009
9/27 – 10/1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > San Antonio, TX
No matter which direction you are heading,
HDR can get you there.
SASHTO
8/28 – 9/2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Biloxi, MS
IBTTA Annual Meeting
9/13 – 9/16.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Chicago, IL
Sustainability, Social Responsibility, Energy
Conservation and Fall Maintenance Conference
10/4 – 10/6.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >St. Louis, MO
Projects
• The Port of Brownsville recently selected HDR to evaluate four existing
terminals and provide planning, design and permitting services for
two new terminals. HDR is also assisting with mitigation planning and
a federal channel deepening project.
• HDR has been selected to provide general port engineering services
at the Port of Port St. Joe. The master contract will serve to develop
approximately 130 acres on St. Joseph Bay and the Gulf County Canal.
ARTBA Annual Meeting
10/6 – 10/9.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Charleston, SC
ACI-NA Annual Conference and Expo
10/11 – 10/14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Austin, TX
AASHTO Annual Conference
10/22 – 10/27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Palm Desert, CA
ACC Annual Conference
11/9 – 11/11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Las Vegas, NV
Awards
• HDR rose to No. 13 in the 2009 Engineering News-Record Top 500
Design Firms Survey and ranked No. 8 in Transportation.
IBTTA Toll Road Summit of the Americas –Brazil
11/15 – 11/17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Sao Paulo, Brazil
• The Boeckman Road Extension Project has been selected by the
American Public Works Association’s (APWA) Oregon Chapter as the
2008 Transportation Project of the Year.
ARTBA Western Leadership Conference
12/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Los Angeles, CA
• The $19.6 million I-17/Carefree Highway interchange was named
Project of the Year by the Arizona Chapter of the APWA.
IBTTA Transportation Finance Summit
12/13 – 12/15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Washington, DC
© Terry Halsey
• Timothy Bennett, Vice President and Rail Section Manager in HDR’s
Omaha office, has been appointed to the Transportation Research
Board’s Committee on Railroad Track Structure System Design.
transportation D elivered editorial b oard
Eric Keen, P.E.
Transportation Director
[email protected]
Nichole Andersen
Director of Planning & Communications
[email protected]
Ken Wall
Editor
[email protected]
Technical Contributors to this Issue:
Tom Smithberger, P.E.
Director - Freight Railroads
[email protected]
Stephen Beard
Director - Transit Planning
[email protected]
Mel Placilla, P.E.
Director – Professional Services
[email protected]
David Lewis, Ph.D.
Director – Economics and Finance
[email protected]
Ralph Batenhorst, P.E.
Director – Traffic & ITS
[email protected]
Jeff Massengill, P.E.
Director – Maritime
[email protected]
Dale Muellerleile, P.E.
Director – Transit Engineering
[email protected]
Jim Lee, P.E.
Director – Transportation Planning
[email protected]
Transportation Delivered is produced twice yearly by HDR. Direct subscription inquiries and address changes to
[email protected]. To view this publication electronically, go to: www.hdrinc.com/transportationdelivered.
www.hdrinc.com
Paper contains 30% post-consumer fiber
PRSRT STD
US POSTAGE
PAID
OMAHA, NE
PERMIT NO. 963
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N >
DELIVERED
Spring/Summer 2009
2410 0709
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE 68114-4049
www.hdrinc.com
T H E H D R A D VA N TA G E
Guidance for TIGER Grant Applications
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriated
$1.5 billion in discretionary grants to be awarded by the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) for capital investments in surface
transportation infrastructure. Known as the Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program, these funds are
available for obligation until September 30, 2011. Grants will be
awarded on a competitive basis to fund up to 100 percent of project
costs for investments that have a significant impact on the nation, a
metropolitan area or a region.
Eligible projects include, but are not limited to:
• Highway or bridge projects, including interstate rehabilitation,
improvements to the rural collector road system, the
reconstruction of overpasses and interchanges, bridge
replacements, seismic retrofit projects for bridges, and
road realignments
• Public transportation projects, including investments in
projects participating in the New Starts or Small Starts
programs that will expedite the completion of those projects
and their entry into revenue service
• Passenger and freight rail transportation projects
• Port infrastructure investments
State and local government applications for TIGER Discretionary Grants
must be submitted by September 15, 2009. The Recovery Act specifies
that grants may be no less that $20 million and no greater than $300
million. However, U.S. DOT has discretion to waive the $20 million
minimum to fund significant projects in smaller cities, regions or states.
Selection Criteria
TIGER grants will be awarded based on specified selection criteria.
Primary selection criteria are intended to capture the primary
objectives of the TIGER provision of the Recovery Act, including
near-term economic recovery and job creation; maximization of
long-term economic benefits and impacts on the nation, a region or
a metropolitan area; and assistance for those most affected by the
current economic downturn. Secondary selection criteria include
innovation and partnership. Projects will be rated on a scale of highly
recommended, recommended or not recommended
for each of the selection criteria.
U.S. DOT guidance emphasizes that benefit-cost
analysis will be applied in evaluation of projects.
Projects seeking at least $100 million in TIGER
grants must complete a “well-developed analysis of
expected benefits and costs,” including a calculation
of net benefits and a description of input data and
methodological standards used for the analysis.
Projects seeking less than $100 million but more
than $20 million must include the project’s expected
benefits in the five long-term outcomes in the primary
selection criteria listed above. Guidance clearly states
that lack of useful analysis may be grounds for denying
award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant.
The HDR Advantage
HDR stands ready to help clients navigate the TIGER
grant application process. In addition to general
application support, HDR’s Decision Economics team
can help build the business case for TIGER funding.
Our experts use decision support processes such as
Sustainable Return on Investment (SROI) to optimize
the total value of projects and to position projects with
the best possible case for funding. SROI uses evidencebased cost-benefit analysis to communicate the full
value of a project — including the economic, social
and environmental value. The result is a business case
that is transparent and accountable.
For more detailed information on the TIGER grant
program, go to www.hdrinc.com/transportation.
To learn how HDR can help, contact your local HDR
office, or:
Russell Zapalac, Central Region Transportation Director
[email protected]

TD Spring Summer 2009

Transcription

Similar documents

ContrastEffects

HDR Pro Pony Saddle Club HDR Close Contact HDR Advantage

241 toll road / 91 express lanes connector project

RADEON X1000 Image Quality RADEON X1000

FlexBoard - Laminations

High Dynamic Range Imaging

Businesses at Harbourside Commercial Park Commercial Park