transportation delivered, fall/winter 2009
Post on 16-Mar-2016
220 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
D E L I V E R E DFall/Winter 2009
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N >
New Orleans’ Streetcar Revival > pg. 1
Green Port Policy Shaping Future of the Port of Long Beach > pg. 21
1
6
9
15
21
19
27
31
35
39
Transit -> StreetcarNew Orleans’ Streetcar RevivalThe Big Easy has big plans for its popular streetcar system as part of the city’s ongoing rebuilding process. Cover Photo: © Keith Philpott
Land Development -> Urban RenewalWest Side Story: Rare Development Opportunity in Manhattan’s Far West SideThe 13-acre Western Rail Yard presents a unique opportunity for residential and commercial development in Manhattan’s Far West Side.
Freight Railroad -> Bridges & StructuresReplacing an Icon — The New Kate Shelley BridgeDesigners dream about projects like this: massive, historically signifi cant and technically challenging. The new Kate Shelley Bridge has it all.
Financial -> Infrastructure FundingWhat Would a National Infrastructure Bank Mean for the American Transportation System?It’s common knowledge that a new funding mechanism is needed to catch the country’s transportation infrastructure up to current demand. Is a National Infrastructure Bank the solution we’ve been searching for?
Photo Feature -> Major BridgesHistory in the Making: Hoover Dam Bypass BridgeThe Hoover Dam has a front-row seat for the construction of America’s longest concrete arch bridge. See the spectacular view for yourself.
Maritime -> Facility DesignGreen Port Policy Shaping the Future of the Port of Long BeachThe Port of Long Beach is the second busiest port in the United States, and it is committed to improving the sustainability of its operations. Increasing rail capacity is a big step in the green direction.
Roadway -> Bridges & StructuresIncreasing Navigational Clearance for Bayonne BridgeThe Bayonne Bridge has greeted cargo ships to Newark Bay since 1931. But those ships keep getting taller, and it’s time for the bridge to do the same.
Technical Excellence -> Design InnovationMoving Beyond 3-DImagine yourself driving through a virtual model of a yet-to-be-constructed highway. Now imagine that model can also show you when each phase will be built and how much it will cost. That’s design innovation.
Aviation -> Runway LightingShedding New Light on Newark Liberty’s Oldest RunwayFrom the fi rst U.S. airport with a commercial airline terminal to serving more than 35 million passengers annually, Newark Liberty has come a long way in 91 years. A new lighting system on Newark’s oldest runway positions the airport for the future.
Policy Outlook -> SustainabilityThe Transportation and Community ConnectionThe federal government’s Sustainable Communities Initiative is a prime example of the movement to integrate community and mobility.
I N T H I S I S S U E
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
New Orleans’ Streetcar
R E V I VA LBy Winsome Bowen
[1]
With the city deeply engaged in
an unprecedented and ambitious
economic recovery program, spurred
largely by the post-Katrina recovery
eff orts, the New Orleans Regional
Transit Authority (RTA) engaged
HDR to identify long-term public
transportation investments in the
central business district (CBD), the
historic French Quarter and newly re-
emerging neighborhoods.
Big Plans for the Big EasyThe New Orleans CBD/French Quarter
Corridor Alternatives Analysis (AA)
was conducted under the Federal
Transit Administration’s (FTA) project
development process. The post-
Katrina economic recovery program
dictated an accelerated schedule for
the AA to help the city realize deeply
needed economic gains. Therefore,
project planners executed a practical,
expedited approach, incorporating
previously completed work and
condensing technical analyses
to eliminate lengthy and fruitless
research, and to identify new streetcar
corridors in the study area. The AA
schedule was shortened from the
typical 18 months to an abbreviated,
but intensive, 12-month process.
Concurrent with the study, the New
Orleans RTA is exploring potential
partnerships and cooperative
agreements with other public and
quasi-public organizations to expedite
new streetcar loops into service.
The study assumed a comprehensive
approach that examined the
inter-relationship of economic
development and city “placemaking.”
The focus was on fi xed rail projects
that encourage development of a
healthy pedestrian realm, essential to
the creation of a livable and fi nancially
sustainable urban center. The AA
examined bus and streetcar interface
and assessed the potential benefi t of
a phased streetcar buildout program
that will ultimately provide eff ective
service coverage throughout New
Orleans.
HDR worked with local community
leaders and stakeholders to identify
alignments that would improve
linkages between neighborhoods
and major activity centers, such as the
CBD, the Ernest N. Morial Convention
Center, the Superdome, the Port of
New Orleans and the historic French
Quarter entertainment district.
Existing Canal Street and Riverfront
streetcar lines will be central urban
transit spines in the expanded
streetcar system.
Development of the New Orleans
Union Passenger Terminal (UPT) as
a central intermodal transfer hub is
integral to the project. Through the
AA, the study team has investigated
opportunities to complement
development plans underway to
encourage riders to park on the edge
Transit -> Streetcar
Anti-railcar movements between
the 1930s and 1960s threatened the
future of streetcars in New Orleans,
but a few lines survived and today
streetcars are making a resurgence
with residents and tourists alike. The
Big Easy currently is home to three
streetcar lines, including one of the
world’s oldest, the St. Charles, which
has operated since the mid-1800s
with only an 18-month interruption
following Hurricane Katrina. The St.
Charles is joined by the Canal Street
Line and the Riverfront Line.
> New Orleans streetcars are making a resurgence with residents and tourists alike.
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [2]
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
of the redeveloping sections of the central business district, and use streetcars to travel
throughout the CBD and French Quarter. This would mitigate traffi c congestion, improve
pedestrian mobility and support the sustainability of New Orleans as an international
destination.
The AA was completed in May 2009, and results were presented in a fi nal public
meeting. Community residents and activists off ered spirited, passionate commentary,
and voiced strong recommendations that connectivity for transit-dependent service
workers and residents be accommodated as part of the city’s rebuilding process. Strong
preference was expressed for inclusion of the French Quarter loop extended to Press
Street, terminating just short of the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks, as an important
fi rst-phase streetcar line.
The emergence of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grant
program, with its short turnaround time for grant applicants, provided yet another
challenge to the already compressed project schedule.
In considering the results of the technical analyses and community feedback, the project
team recommended that, instead of dropping any of the surviving alignments from
further development, the following three-component program of streetcar projects be
adopted as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA):• UPT/Loyola Avenue Streetcar Loop;• French Quarter Streetcar Loop; and• Convention Center/Riverfront Streetcar Loop.
> Streetcar expansion will improve linkages between neighborhoods and major activity centers, such as the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center.
[3] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
This recommendation was supported
by results of economic development,
forecast ridership and mobility studies.
The French Quarter loop scored behind
the other two corridors on potential
future residential development, based
on a smaller supply of available land
and signifi cantly lower planned/
zoned densities. However, the project
team realized that while the UPT/
Loyola and Convention Center loops
would bolster growth of redeveloping
neighborhoods, the French Quarter
alignment creates an opportunity
to stabilize historically notable
neighborhoods and substantial
existing residential populations.
Much of the housing within a quarter-
mile of the French Quarter alignment is
at workforce levels of aff ordability and,
as such, the area provides a substantial
supply of the study area’s workforce
housing. Connecting this supply to
the streetcar system would provide
access for this workforce population
to the signifi cant employment options
available in the French Quarter and the
CBD.
Three Corridors, One VisionThe three corridors under study
provide excellent opportunities to
expand and/or reinforce true urban
neighborhoods and business centers,
with a sustainable urban development
and redevelopment focus. A more
successful downtown core will bring
a greater tax base and more resources
to the broader city, benefi tting all
residents on some level.
[ “This rail expansion will serve the
most important element of our
public transportation system…
our neighborhoods.” — Justin T. Augustine III, New Orleans RTA General Manager ]
> Elks Plaza and Canal Street will be a major transfer point for streetcar and bus passengers.
[4]
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
tFrom a ridership forecast perspective, all three corridors show potential to attract
ridership and contribute to a viable local area circulation system that provides
improved connectivity for the CBD and French Quarter. The ridership forecast
results indicate there is an advantage to implementing all three corridors, since it
is likely that total ridership benefi ts under a fully built-out streetcar system would
be greater than incremental construction of each streetcar alignment. While the
viability of any or all of the proposed extensions will ultimately depend on other
factors such as cost, construction impacts, available funding and implementation/
phasing, the forecasts appear to favor moving forward with the extensions.
Each of the three alignments — the UPT/Loyola, the Convention Center and
the French Quarter — provides benefi ts to its particular transit-dependent
community and better access to job opportunities. Extending the Canal Streetcar
line to the UPT and the Convention Center will improve transportation in and
out of a multitude of hospitality industry job bases. Likewise, the French Quarter/
Press Street alignment will improve mobility for residents in adjacent and nearby
neighborhoods to employment opportunities in the CBD.
Moving ForwardThe New Orleans RTA board accepted
the recommended three-component
program as the LPA on June 25, 2009.
On August 6, the New Orleans City
Council unanimously supported the
RTA board’s resolution, and on August
11, the board of the New Orleans
Regional Planning Commission passed
a resolution to support steps to adopt
the LPA into the fi scally constrained
Long Range Transportation Plan. On
Oct. 23, 2009, the RTA contracted
HDR to complete Environmental
Assessment and Preliminary
Engineering (EA/PE) work within the
next nine months.
Now, the New Orleans RTA is
aggressively pursuing continued
project development activities, with
the goal of going from concept to
completed construction within three-
and-a-half years, with a proposed
opening date of February 2012. HDR’s
transit team continues to support
the RTA in this intensive eff ort,
working with the client to heighten
the compelling magic of one of the
United States’ richest cultural heritage
resources. ->
> Winsome Bowen is a Senior Transit Planner in HDR’s Charlotte, N.C., offi ce.
Winsome’s professional practice has been strengthened by more than 17 years of
working with a diverse range of community-based organizations, governmental
agencies and public/private organizations. She can be reached at
winsome.bowen@hdrinc.com .
A U T H O R
> Extending the Canal Streetcar line to the UPT and the Convention Center will improve transportation in and out of a multitude of hospitality industry job bases.
[5]
© db
ox
The far west side of Midtown Manhattan between West 28th and West 42nd streets, generally west of
Eighth Avenue, has undergone a series of major transformations since its earliest occupation by European
settlers. Developed as farm land during the 18th century, by the mid-19th century it had transformed into
a thriving freight yard serving New York City. Today, the Hudson Yards district features a diverse collection of
monumental structures and public infrastructure, including the approaches to the Lincoln Tunnel, the Jacob
K. Javits Convention & Exhibition Center, the Port Authority Bus Terminal and numerous open parking lots. It
also is home to the John D. Caemmerer Rail Yard, a Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) storage facility
serving the Long Island Railroad’s (LIRR’s) nearby Pennsylvania Station. Lacking a direct subway connection and
hampered by manufacturing zoning designations, the Hudson Yards area has few residences and little of the
major commercial and retail development that characterizes much of Midtown Manhattan.
Recognizing that Hudson Yards was the only remaining area in Manhattan that could provide room for the
projected commercial and residential development required to maintain New York as the world’s leading
fi nancial and business center, the New York City Department of City Planning (NYCDCP) prepared A Framework
for Development for the area in 2001, which called for revitalization of the area through rezoning for medium- to
high-density, mixed-use development, and the extension of the No. 7 Subway line from its current terminus at
Times Square.
S T O R Y :
W E S TS I D E
Rare Development Opportunity for
Manhattan’s Far West SideBy Jim Brown, P.E.
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [6]
To implement its recommendations, the New York City
Planning Commission (CPC) and MTA jointly completed an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with the
City Environmental Quality Review, State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the City’s Uniform Land Use Review
Procedure. The landmark EIS was approved by both entities
in November 2004 — permitting extension of the No. 7
Subway Line into the Hudson Yards area; expansion of the
Convention Center; and development of approximately 24
million square feet of new offi ce space, 1 million square feet
of new retail space, 13,600 new housing units (including
almost 4,000 units of aff ordable housing), 2 million square
feet of new hotel space, and over 20 acres of new open
space and public parkland.
The EIS also considered a proposal for development of a
multi-use facility over the western portion of the Rail
Yard, which was proposed to be the home for the New
York Jets football team and additional exhibition space
for the Convention Center. No modifi cation of the zoning
designation for the Western Rail Yard (WRY) site was
proposed as part of that action, which was instead subject
to State law approvals. Extremely controversial, this element
of the overall plan for the revitalization of the Hudson Yards
area was ultimately rejected by the New York State Public
Authorities Control Board in mid-2005 and withdrawn.
Subsequently, in July 2007, MTA, in coordination with the
City, issued a request for proposals (RFP) for development
over the 13-acre WRY site bordered by West 30th and 33rd
streets between Eleventh and Twelfth avenues. The RFP
included urban design guidelines that would permit the
creation of approximately 6 million square feet of mixed-use
development (residential, offi ce, hotel, retail, parking and
community facility uses), a public school and a minimum
of fi ve acres of public open space. The overall goal of the
project was to establish a world-class sustainable urban
environment with a vibrant mix of uses that are fully
integrated with the surrounding
Hudson Yards district.
A joint venture of the Related
Companies and Goldman Sachs, RG
WRY LLC, was ultimately selected to
develop the site. Recognizing the
extraordinary costs of developing
over the WRY, the City provided
$40 million for development of
300 units of permanent aff ordable
housing at two city-owned sites
within the same community district
as an integral part of the project.
The 13-acre WRY site provides
storage for 386 train cars on 30
tracks and a number of LIRR facilities.
As a consequence, development of
the site is particularly complex since
it requires the construction of a
deck over the active rail yard, while
allowing the facility to continue to
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
© db
ox
> Development of the Western Rail Yard includes more than 6 million square feet of residential and commercial development and a substantial amount of new public open space.
[7]
serve Pennsylvania Station and Long Island commuters. The development is being planned to incorporate a number of
sustainable features, including energy and water conservation measures that will facilitate LEED Silver accreditation. The
urban design for the site also will allow it to be integrated with other nearby development, including:• Development over the adjacent Eastern Rail Yard;• A new urban park and boulevard
system immediately to the north;
and,• The much-heralded “High Line”
project, which is transforming
an abandoned elevated railway
structure into a public greenspace
and walkway that ultimately
will allow pedestrians to travel
unimpeded over dozens of city
blocks.
Since the proposed development requires a number of discretionary public actions, the City and MTA once again joined
together to complete an EIS for these two ventures. The Hudson Yards Development Corporation, which was established by
the City in 2005 to oversee redevelopment of the Hudson Yards district, contracted HDR in mid-2008 on a sole-source basis
to manage preparation of the EIS, which gained City and State approval in Fall 2009. Construction is anticipated to be started,
contingent on fi nancing, in 2011. ->
> Jim Brown, P.E., is HDR’s Director of Transportation for Environmental, based in New York, N.Y. Jim has three decades of experience
in the environmental fi eld, with particular knowledge in the preparation of federal and state environmental documents for major
transportation, infrastructure and development projects. He has worked on virtually every type of transportation mode, including
highways, light rail transit facilities, heavy rail facilities, airports and marine facilities. Jim can be reached at james.brown@hdrinc.com .
Land Development -> Urban Renewal
[ The development is being planned to
incorporate a number of sustainable
features, including energy and water
conservation measures that will
facilitate LEED accreditation. ]
A U T H O R
> In addition to the Western Rail Yard, HDR is contributing to several other projects in the Far West Side, including construction inspection services for the High Line (shown here). HDR also is providing design for rehabilitation of the Eleventh Avenue viaduct that forms the eastern boundary of the WRY site, and construction management for the No. 7 Subway line extension.
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [8]
ReplacingIcon
an
The New
Kate Shelley BridgeBy Jeff Teig, P.E., and Tom McCune, P.E.
[9] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
Some projects stand out in engineers’ minds
because of the historical context of the site, a unique
technical challenge, or simply the size of what’s
being constructed. And then there are projects that
combine all these elements, like the replacement of
the Kate Shelley Bridge, near Boone, Iowa.
HistoryRailroaders know the original Kate Shelley Bridge as
the tallest and longest railroad bridge of its time, and
they know the incredible story of the young girl for
whom it was named. In July 1881, 15-year-old Kate
Shelley crawled across a rickety wooden bridge over
the Des Moines River on hands and knees during a
thunderstorm to reach Moingona Station and warn
them that the bridge over Honey Creek had been
washed away by fl oodwaters, sending a train and four
crewman plummeting into the creek. She reached the
station in time to stop a Chicago-bound passenger
train from a frightening fate and led a rescue party
back to Honey Creek, where two of the other train’s
crewmen were saved. When a new steel bridge was
constructed over the Des Moines River 20 years later,
it was dedicated in Kate Shelley’s honor.
But time has taken its toll on the Kate Shelley Bridge,
limiting crossing trains to just 25 mph and causing
back-ups along an important Union Pacifi c Railroad
(UPRR) mainline between Chicago and the West
Coast.
Technical ChallengesWith a desire to increase the Des Moines River crossing
speed limit to 70 mph and improve overall safety,
UPRR hired HDR to design a replacement bridge. As
part of the agreement, UPRR directed the designers to
incorporate 23 steel plate girder spans and associated
bearings salvaged from another bridge. Analysis of
these spans and bearings revealed the need for retrofi t
design to bring them into compliance with current
provisions of the American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association Manual for Railway
Engineering (AREMA).
AREMA formulas for calculating longitudinal forces
due to braking and traction of trains were modifi ed
in 1997, signifi cantly increasing the magnitude of
these forces compared to the previous formula. The
current AREMA provisions applied to this bridge
specifi ed a force of 3,421 kips on each track. Due to
the relative stiff ness of the abutments compared to
> Following in the footsteps of its predecessor, the new Kate Shelley Bridge ranks as one of the tallest and longest double-track railroad bridges in the world.
[10]
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
[ Following in the footsteps of its
predecessor, the new Kate Shelley Bridge
ranks as one of the tallest and longest
double-track railroad bridges in the world. ]
> At 2,813 feet long and 190 feet tall , the new Kate Shelley Bridge is the same height as the original bridge, but 128 feet longer.
[11]
Freight Railroad -> Bridges & Structures
the relatively slender concrete bents,
more than 90 percent of this force
would be directed to the abutments,
which are not capable of resisting
such a large force. Additionally, the rail
on the bridge would be overstressed
in this scenario. HDR designers solved
the problem by integrating fi ve braced
towers within the length of the bridge
to assist in resisting the longitudinal
force. The innovative towers were
designed for stiff ness and strength,
using a system of concrete columns,
concrete struts and steel diagonal
bracing to account for the current
AREMA-dictated longitudinal forces.
The majority of the force is distributed
in essentially equal portions to the two
abutments and the fi ve towers, with
some relatively small forces distributed
to the remaining bents. The stress in
the rails is maintained at an acceptable
level.
SizeThough the original Kate Shelley
Bridge had been constructed with
a 300-foot deck truss main span,
the Des Moines River is no longer
used as a shipping channel. The only
navigational mandates for the new
bridge was to leave enough clearance
for recreational use, specifi cally canoes
and kayaks. The salvaged spans
dictated a target span length of 110
feet and a preferred design alternative
of steel deck plate girders, but the 23
spans were not suffi cient to complete
the double-track bridge. The fi nished
structure required another 17 spans
of 110 feet and 12 spans of 70 feet.
The west end of the bridge features
three additional 30-foot prestressed
concrete box beam spans and one 12-
foot conventionally reinforced precast
concrete box beam span. There
are three more 30-foot prestressed
concrete box beam spans at the east
end.
The steel plate girder spans are
supported on concrete bents
consisting of two columns each (5
feet to 8 feet in diameter) founded
on concrete drilled shafts (5 feet to
10 feet in diameter). The drilled shafts
extend as much as 123 feet below
ground level. The prestressed concrete
box beam spans are supported on
concrete caps founded on driven steel
piles. There are two abutments and
fi ve bents supported on steel piles
and 27 bents supported on concrete
drilled shafts.
At 2,813 feet long and 190 feet tall at
its highest point, the new double-track
bridge is the same height as the old
bridge, but 128 feet longer. Following
in the footsteps of its predecessor,
the new Kate Shelley Bridge ranks as
one of the tallest and longest double-
track railroad bridges in the world.
The resulting materials list provides
additional insight to the massive scale
of the new Kate Shelley Bridge:• Cast-in-place concrete — 46,390
tons (23,700 cubic yards)• Precast concrete — 7,370 tons
(3,765 cubic yards)• Reinforcing steel — 2,135 tons• Steel H-piles — 340 tons• Steel pile bracing — 10 tons• Structural steel, secondhand —
2,220 tons• Structural steel, new — 2,700 tons• Permanent steel casing (drilled
shafts) — 430 tons• Grating footwalks — 8,300 linear
feet• Wire rope handrail — 10,480
linear feet• Pipe handrail — 5,830 linear feet• Miscellaneous steel — 224 tons• Butyl rubber/asphalt sheet
waterproofi ng — 100,500 square
feet
Other FeaturesInspection walkways run the full
length of the deck plate girder portion
of the bridge, between the girders
under each track. Security gates at each
end prevent unauthorized persons
from accessing these walkways.
In addition to the bridge itself, the
tracks at each end required
realignment to fi t the new structure.
The total project length, including
track work, is 8,200 feet, or 1.6 miles.
The tight radius approach curves to the
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [12]
old bridge limited trains to a maximum
speed of 45 mph before slowing even
further to comply with the 25 mph speed
limit. Constructing the new bridge 90
feet north of and parallel to the original
structure allowed the approach curves
to be softened, improving the overall
geometry and increasing the maximum
speed to 70 mph.
Another design feature of the bridge
is an extensive system of trench drains,
horizontal drilled drains and toe berms
in and on the bridge slopes to provide
a satisfactory factor of safety against
soil failure.
ConclusionThe fi rst non-construction train crossed
the new Kate Shelley Bridge Aug. 20,
2009. For the 40 intermodal and coal
trains that cross the bridge each day, the
new alignment and bridge have made
the trip safer and more effi cient. The new
bridge is an aesthetic complement to the
old Kate Shelley Bridge, which remains in
place but is no longer in service, and has
already proven to be a tourist attraction
like the bridge it replaced. ->
> Jeff Teig, P.E., is the Section Manager
for HDR’s Omaha, Neb., railroad bridge
team and has more than 25 years of
experience designing rail structures.
Jeff was the project manager for Kate
Shelley Bridge. He can be reached at
jeff .teig@hdrinc.com .
> Tom McCune, P.E., is a Senior Project
Manager in HDR’s Omaha, Neb., offi ce
with more than 38 years of structural
engineering experience. Tom was
the lead designer for Kate Shelley
Bridge. He can be reached at
tom.mccune@hdrinc.com .
A U T H O R S
> At right: Five innovative towers were designed for stiff ness and strength, using a system of concrete columns, concrete struts and steel diagonal bracing.
> Below: Maximum speed across the Boone River has increased to 70 mph thanks to softened approach curves and improved overall geometry.
[13]
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [14]
What Would aNational Infras
Mean for the American Transportation By David Lewis, Ph.D.
Roads and bridges are aging, capacity isn’t keeping up with demand and funding falls well
short of the need for improvements — this is the state of transportation infrastructure in the
United States. The one thing most industry experts and government offi cials agree upon is
that the situation isn’t going to get any better without a major change in strategy. The debate
now focuses on determining which strategy makes the most sense for the country.
Several proposals show promise of generating new capital to address the crisis, such as raising
the federal gas tax, replacing the gas tax with a levy based on vehicle miles traveled, taxing
carbon emissions, expanding tolling operations on the interstate highway system and/or
seeking more public-private partnerships to fund construction and on-going maintenance
and operations. Perhaps some combination of these ideas will manifest and light the way to
a better transportation future. One suggestion that would work in concert with one or more
of these capital-raising plans is the establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank. Although
it has the support of the Obama administration and was presented to Congress in the form
of a bipartisan bill, it has thus far failed to progress from idea to reality.
The ProblemAccording to a National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission
(NSTIFC) report, released in February 2009, vehicle miles traveled went up 97 percent from
1980 to 2006. Truck miles jumped by 106 percent during the same period, but the amount of
highway lane miles available to travel on grew by only 4.4 percent. As the report stated, “over
twice the traffi c was traveling on essentially the same roadway capacity.”
The result is congestion, and lots of it. The Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 Urban Mobility
Report determined that congestion in the 437 largest U.S. communities leads to 4.2 billion
hours and 2.9 billion gallons of fuel wasted each year. That’s a $78 billion annual loss that can
be directly attributed to insuffi cient transportation infrastructure. A recent HDR study for the
U.S. Department of Transportation, which extended the defi nition of congestion to include
costs associated with air quality and greenhouse gases, ups the annual cost of congestion to
fully $85.4 billion.
Unfortunately, the capacity conundrum isn’t the only one facing the nation’s decision makers.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) stated in its 2009 Report Card for America’s
Infrastructure that a staggering 590,750 bridges — almost 30 percent of all the bridges in the
country — are considered “structurally defi cient or functionally obsolete.” This is due, in part,
to our bridges having an average age of 40 years.
Things aren’t going to get better without a signifi cant change in strategy. The Federal
Highway Administration says $131.7 billion is needed annually over the next 20 years to
[15] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
tructure Bank System?
[16]
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
address lagging roadways, and fi xing
America’s bridges will cost an additional
$9.4 billion a year. The Federal Transit
Administration estimates that the
cost to maintain and improve transit
systems throughout the country over
the next two decades works out to
about $21.8 billion a year.
The NSTIFC report showed that the
purchasing power of the federal gas
tax — the main revenue source for the
Highway Trust Fund — decreased by
33 percent since 1993, the last time
the tax rate was raised. As a result, the
Highway Trust Fund will be almost
$400 billion short of the funds needed
for federal contributions to highway
and transit improvements just for the
period between 2010 and 2015. The
ASCE report card echoed the bleak
outlook, giving the nation’s roads a
score of D-, transit a D, rail a C- and
bridges a C.
The ProposalTwo years ago, Sen. Christopher J.
Dodd, D-Conn., and former Sen.
Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., submitted a
piece of legislation titled the Dodd-
Hagel National Infrastructure Bank
Act of 2007. It called for creation of
an independent government entity
“tasked with evaluating and fi nancing
capacity-building infrastructure
projects of substantial regional and
national signifi cance.” In addition to
transportation infrastructure, the
National Infrastructure Bank would
consider projects related to public
housing and water/wastewater
systems. The bank would be governed
by a presidentially appointed board
of directors (subject to Senate
confi rmation) with operational
oversight by an inspector general,
who would then report directly to
Congress.
The Dodd-Hagel bill specifi es that only
projects requiring at least $75 million
in federal funds would be eligible for
National Infrastructure Bank assistance.
To determine the level of federal
contribution, the projects would be
evaluated based on the following:
• Type of infrastructure• Location• Cost• Current and projected usage• Non-federal revenue• Regional/national signifi cance• Economic growth/community
development• Reduction in traffi c congestion• Environmental benefi ts• Land-use policies that promote
smart growth• Mobility improvements
Once a level of funding is established,
the bank would develop a government-
backed fi nancing package that could
include “direct subsidies, direct loan
guarantees, long-term tax-credit
general purpose bonds, and long-
term tax-credit infrastructure project-
specifi c bonds.”
It’s important to note that the intent of
the Dodd-Hagel National Infrastructure
Bank proposal was to add to the federal
funding mix as opposed to replacing
existing and future federal funding
> Vehicle miles travelled increased by 97 percent from 1980 to 1996.
> Infrastructure improvements could signifi cantly reduce the $78 billion of fuel lost to congestion each year.
[17] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
> David Lewis, Ph.D., is HDR’s Chief Economist and Director of
Economics and Finance, based in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Lewis
has 26 years of experience developing and applying economic tools
such as Cost-Benefi t Analysis, productivity measurement, the Risk
Analysis Process and public-private investment partnerships. He can
be reached at david.lewis@hdrinc.com .
A U T H O R
mechanisms such as grants and
infrastructure earmarks.
The Obama administration has
adopted a similar National Infrastructure
Bank proposal, but added energy
and telecommunications to the mix
and expanded eligible transportation
projects to include aviation and freight
railroads. The president’s plan, however,
would be to target transportation fi rst
as it is seen to have the greatest need,
then gradually expand into the other
areas.
In addition to increasing the potential
funding available to infrastructure
projects, the administration believes
a National Infrastructure Bank would
broaden the scope with regard to the
types of projects that might receive
federal assistance. In particular, the
bank would see beyond modal-specifi c
grant programs to address projects that
create intermodal opportunities. It also
would consider projects that cross state
lines to provide regional benefi ts, as well
as projects that have positive impacts
beyond a strictly transportation nature,
such as environmental improvements
or economic growth.
Other ways the president’s proposal
diff ers from the Dodd-Hagel bill is
that it lowers the minimum project
funding requirement to $25 million
and specifi es that the National
Infrastructure Bank be an independent
entity within the U.S. Department of
Transportation. The board of directors
would be appointed by the president
(with Senate confi rmation) and
modeled after the Internal Revenue
Service Oversight Board. The bank
would be equipped to provide grants,
loans and loan guarantees, but would
not be permitted to borrow money
from the capital markets itself.
The Pros and ConsPerhaps the most important task of the
National Infrastructure Bank would be
to look beyond the local transportation
impact of a specifi c project and
consider it on a regional scale as
well as factoring non-transportation
benefi ts such as economic growth and
environmental improvements. In this
way, owners will have to truly prove the
merit (“return on investment”) of their
projects. Some analysts believe that
an emphasis on merit would create
powerful incentives to innovate and
help trigger a wave of technical and
design improvements accordingly.
Another benefi t is that this proposal
would work in conjunction with any
of the capital-raising concepts being
considered. But beyond that, the
National Infrastructure Bank has the
potential to stretch federal and local
dollars even further by helping project
owners obtain private fi nancing
sources they might not qualify for
without federal backing. If new tax
strategies or tolling reduce some of
the distance between available funds
and need, the National Infrastructure
Bank could help close the gap entirely.
Furthermore, by injecting greater
objectivity into the process by which
projects are evaluated and selected,
a National Infrastructure Bank would
have the eff ect of rewarding technical
innovation and ingenuity over
political infl uence and maneuvering —
improving the quality of infrastructure
investment ideas coming forward.
New ideas are never without risk, and
this is no exception. Some skeptics
worry about the prospect of a new
bureaucracy; they believe that current
fi nancing programs and methods can
be signifi cantly improved without
going to the expense of establishing
another federal organization. There
might also be a concern that, in
sharpening the focus on projects of
national and regional signifi cance, a
National Infrastructure Bank would
blunt the federal role in strengthening
local communities.
The OutlookIn July 2009, the Obama administration
reasserted its support for a National
Infrastructure Bank. However, at
the same time, the administration
recommended an 18-month delay in
the multiyear transportation legislation
within which a National Infrastructure
Bank would be enacted. That legislation
lapsed in September 2009 and hope
for a new transportation bill in the
near term is dwindling. But a new bill is
certain to be debated over the coming
months and the pros and cons of
establishing a National Infrastructure
Bank will be front and center on the
agenda of possible initiatives for
dealing with America’s ever-mounting
infrastructure defi cit. ->
Additional References Offi ce of Management and Budget, Design
of the National Infrastructure Bank.
Everett Ehrlich and Felix G. Rohatyn, The
New York Review of Books, Vol. 55 No. 15, A
New Bank to Save Our Infrastructure.
Financial -> Infrastructure Funding
[18]
Histor y in the Making: Hoover Dam
A dramatic new concrete arch is joining the setting
of the historic Hoover Dam, spanning the Black
Canyon between Arizona and Nevada. The 1,060-
foot arch will be the fourth longest concrete arch
in the world, and the longest in North America. This
new transportation facility will greatly enhance
mobility in the vicinity of the dam by relocating
traffi c from the dam onto a new high-speed,
four-lane roadway. HDR led a team of consultants
that provided plans, specifi cations, estimates and
construction support services for the new 3-mile
long, $240 million Hoover Dam bypass, including
design of the Colorado River crossing. ->
Photography © Keith Philpott
[19] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
Photo Feature -> Major Bridges
Bypass Bridge
[20]
As the second busiest port in the United States, the Port
of Long Beach (POLB) handles more than $100 billion in
trade annually. POLB already features world-class cargo
terminals and related infrastructure, but plans to spend
more than $2.6 billion on infrastructure enhancements
over the next decade to stay ahead of the growing trade
demand.
Green Port PolicyThe San Pedro Bay Ports (SPB) of Los Angeles and
Long Beach are the largest ports in the United States
and serve as the country’s primary western gateway to
international trade. To properly and effi ciently handle
this responsibility, the SPB Ports are planning the
infrastructure necessary to accommodate growth while
minimizing impacts to the adjacent communities.
Signifi cant increases in truck traffi c generated by POLB
places a greater burden on the regional roadway
network, resulting in highway congestion and
diminished air quality due to diesel truck emissions.
In response to local community concerns about
traffi c congestion and environmental impacts due
to the port’s activities, POLB enacted a milestone
“Green Port Policy” in 2005. Built upon the port’s 20-
year record of environmental protection programs,
the policy establishes environmental stewardship and
sustainability practices with the goal of reducing the
impact of POLB’s activities.
The fi ve principles of the Green Port Policy are:• Protect the community from harmful
environmental impacts• Distinguish the port as a leader in environmental
stewardship and compliance• Promote sustainability• Employ best available technology to avoid or
reduce environmental impacts• Engage and educate the community
Enhancing Rail Network Reduces Impact A 2006 SPB rail study identifi ed rail system improvements
as critical to effi cient handling of cargo traffi c and
meeting the objectives of the POLB Green Port Policy.
In addition, maximizing use of an on-dock rail system
is part of the port’s Clean Air Action Plan. Most of
POLB’s international cargo terminals feature an on-dock
intermodal terminal where shipping containers can be
loaded directly on rail cars instead of being moved off
port property by truck. These direct intermodal rail cars
can then be assembled into trains for delivery to inland
destinations throughout the United States.
A single dedicated intermodal train carrying 280
containers can eliminate as many as 750 short-haul truck
trips on the local roadway network. In 2006, the POLB
on-dock rail facilities eliminated more than 1 million
truck trips from local roads. Since trains are almost four
times more effi cient than trucks, and produce half the
By Tom Kim, P.E., and Mark Evans, P.E.
Port PolicyGREEN
Port of Long BeachShaping the Future of the
[21] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
Maritime -> Facility Design©
Keith
Philp
ott
> As the second busiest port in the United States, the Port of Long Beach handles more than $100 billion in trade annually.
[22]
© Ke
ith Ph
illpo
tt
> Limited space for on-dock rail terminals makes it challenging to provide the required on-dock storage and staging tracks to maximize overall terminal effi ciency.
[23] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
emissions per ton-mile, enhancing
the port’s on-dock rail will result in
signifi cant environmental benefi ts to
the Southern California region.
The Pier B Solution The Pier B Rail Facility is POLB’s
largest rail yard, playing a vital role
in maintaining the fl uidity and
throughput of the port’s on-dock rail
terminals. The existing Pier B Rail Yard
is in the northern part of the port
complex, southwest of the junction
of Anaheim Street and the busy
Interstate 710, and includes a grade
crossing at West 9th Street. Limited
space for on-dock rail terminals makes
it challenging to provide the required
on-dock storage and staging tracks to
maximize overall terminal effi ciency.
To support development of alternative
rail yard designs, the project team
conducted a detailed dynamic
rail simulation eff ort. The model
incorporated extensive input from
key stakeholders such as BNSF, Union
Pacifi c Railroad and Pacifi c Harbor
Lines (the SPB port terminal switching
railroad), as well as POLB’s on-dock rail
terminal operators. The results of the
simulation helped answer two key
questions:• How large does the rail yard need
to be to support future cargo
volumes through 2035?• How much has to be built, and
when, to match anticipated
demand?
The simulation model included rail
functions of the Pier B Rail Facility,
as well as existing and planned on-
dock rail facilities and connecting
trackage. The dynamic simulation
approach was used in lieu of a static
model to establish the “give-and-take”
operational relationship between
the on-dock terminals and the Pier
B Rail Facility. Analysis of numerous
simulation runs identifi ed how large
the yard needs to be to serve the on-
dock terminals in the most effi cient
manner. It was determined that, under
current conditions, the Pier B Rail
Facility would only support forecasted
demand until 2015. To support the
projected 2035 on-dock rail cargo
demand, the facility would need a total
of fi ve 10,000-foot arrival/departure
tracks and 32 storage/staging tracks
averaging 3,200 feet in length.
Based on the results of the rail
simulation eff ort, a preferred maximum
build-out alternative was developed
to meet the needs of POLB through
2035. The proposed alternative would
[24]
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
consist of three phases, to be
constructed over an estimated
36-month period:• Pier B Street Realignment
(Phase 1) — The fi rst project
phase would realign Pier
B Street to enhance traffi c
fl ow and provide space
for more yard trackage.
Additionally, Pico Avenue
would be realigned to make
room for additional arrival/
departure tracks.• Pier B Rail Facility
Enhancement (Phase 2) —
This phase would expand
the existing rail yard up to
West 9th Street, close the
existing West 9th Street
grade crossing and add the
new 10,000-foot arrival/
departure tracks.• Pier B Rail Facility
Enhancement (Phase 3)
— The fi nal phase would
expand the rail yard into the
North Harbor Area north
of West 9th Street, provide
additional arrival/departure
tracks, and potentially
include a grade separation
connecting Pier B Street
with Anaheim Street.
Despite the challenge of working
within a confi ned space, the
model showed that it is possible
to enhance the Pier B Rail Facility
— providing additional train
staging, storage and layover
facilities, improving the effi ciency
of POLB’s rail network and
maximizing the eff ectiveness of
the port’s on-dock intermodal
facilities as cargo volumes
increase. Additionally, the project
would improve traffi c fl ow and
increase safety by realigning Pier
B Street and closing the West 9th
Street grade crossing.
> The green solution: a single dedicated intermodal train carrying 280 containers can eliminate as many as 750 short-haul truck trips on the local roadway network.
[25] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
Project Status In addition to the rail simulation work, during the past two
years HDR has assisted POLB in moving this signifi cant
project forward both technically and environmentally.
Signifi cant activities to-date include conducting
coordination meetings with numerous project stakeholders,
a utility study that has identifi ed more than 40 diff erent
utility companies and hundreds of impacted utility lines,
and a North Harbor traffi c study that examined the impact of
various alternatives, including potential grade separations.
POLB has issued a Notice of Preparation for the project
and initiated a public comment period. The port plans
to prepare a draft Environmental Impact Report on the
proposed project to study the eff ects of the project on air
and water quality, transportation and biological resources.
Once the draft EIR is completed, it will be released for public
comment. Additional input from the public, agencies and
other project stakeholders will be solicited before any action
is taken by the Board of Harbor Commissioners.
All of the steps taken by POLB to advance the Pier B On-Dock
Rail Support Facility program will continue to be guided by
the port’s landmark Green Port Policy to ensure delivery
of a project that will benefi t the community, promote
environmental stewardship and provide sustainable
solutions for effi cient goods movement. ->
> Tom Kim, P.E., is a Senior Vice President
and HDR’s Transportation Program
Manager for Southern California, based
in Irvine. Tom has more than 20 years of
experience with railroad engineering and
planning. He can be reached at
tom.kim@hdrinc.com .
> Mark Evans, P.E., is a Senior Railroad
Project Manager in HDR’s Irvine, Calif.,
offi ce. Mark has more than 30 years
of experience with railroad-oriented
project planning, design, management,
and construction. He can be reached at
mark.evans@hdrinc.com .
A U T H O R S
> The proposed alternative would consist of three phases, to be constructed over an estimated 36-month period.
[26]
Bayonne BridgeI N C R E A S I N G N A V I G A T I O N A L C L E A R A N C E F O R
By Joseph LoBuono, P.E.
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
Bayonne Bridge opened on Nov. 15, 1931, as the longest
steel arch bridge of its day and retained that title for more
than 45 years. The single span through arch truss stretches
1,652 feet across the Kill van Kull. The approaches, consisting
of a twin steel plate girder system with fl oorbeams and slab,
take the overall length of the facility to 6,974 feet.
The bridge is as impressive and stately today as it was 78
years ago, but the ships passing beneath it on the journey
to and from Port Newark and Port Elizabeth are becoming
more massive than anyone could have imagined when
Othmar Ammann designed it to accommodate the U.S.
Navy’s tallest vessels. The navigational clearance of 150 feet
represents a potential growth constraint for the two ports
as the next generation of cargo ships look to reach 214 feet
from waterline to their highest point. To keep the ports
from falling behind the industry, The Port Authority of New
York & New Jersey (PANYNJ) commissioned an alternatives
evaluation to increase clearance. The study team evaluated
24 options, with three main themes: raise the arch roadway
within the confi nes of the existing arch; raise the entire
existing arch by jacking; and construct a new bridge.
The Panamax ProblemThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has conducted
a study of the existing port facilities and the impact of
shipping clearance constraints on the future economic
viability of the ports. The study was driven by an increased
industry-wide shift in maximum ship size arising from the
widening of the Panama Canal. Currently, “Panamax” ships
represent the maximum dimensions that will fi t through the
locks of the Panama Canal. This size is determined by the
dimensions of the lock chambers and water depth in the
canal. An increasing number of ships are built precisely to
the Panamax limit to maximize the amount of cargo on each
vessel. Some of the current fl eet of Panamax ships have a
maximum height of 190 feet, already 40 feet higher than the
clearance of Bayonne Bridge.
> The historic Bayonne Bridge is as impressive and stately today as when it opened in 1931, but navigational clearance limitations present a challenge for nearby ports.
[27]
With the widening of the Panama Canal, a new category
of ship — the “Post-Panamax” or “Panamax II” — is on the
horizon. This new generation of ships potentially increases
the number of 20-foot intermodal containers a Panama
Canal-ready ship can carry from 5,000 to about 12,000.
In support of the USACE study, PANYNJ’s evaluation
will determine the feasibility and cost of increasing the
navigational clearances under Bayonne Bridge. In addition
to increasing the clearance, all of the options include
provisions to expand the roadway geometry to provide 12-
foot lanes and, where possible, full shoulders to conform to
AASHTO’s Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
for a design speed of 55 mph.
Plans and profi les were developed for each of the 24
alternatives, as well as construction sequences for all the
major operations to verify the feasibility of the proposed
options. A brief description of the 24 options follows.
Raise the RoadwayRaising the bridge roadway within the existing arch would
require demolition of the existing bridge roadway and
construction of a new roadway at a higher level. Seven options
were considered under this theme. Three options raise the
roadway 35 feet to provide a 185-foot navigation clearance:
to raise the roadway 50 feet to provide a 200-foot navigation
clearance; and to raise the roadway 65 feet to provide a
215-foot navigation clearance. Several common issues were
considered for each option, including superstructure depth,
minimum vertical clearance, modifi cation of the existing
arch and construction staging.
One challenge this theme presented was the need to
relocate the upper and lower chord roadway openings.
The existing arch sway bracing would be removed where
the new structure is in confl ict with the old. In general, the
new openings would require removal of two bays of sway
bracing and one lateral strut. The modifi cations increase the
unbraced length of the arch truss chords, thereby reducing
their capacity. It was determined that only a small loss of axial
capacity is suff ered and can be corrected by strengthening
the arch chords via the addition of cover plates.
The new roadway within the arch would be hung at a higher
level from new cable hangers. Outside of the arch, the raised
superstructure would be supported by increasing the height
of the vertical posts and adding appropriate cross-bracing.
Construction would be split into fi ve stages, with at least
one lane of traffi c in each direction maintained throughout
construction of the new superstructure.
Raise the ArchRaising the arch by jacking the entire arch vertically would
require extending and strengthening the existing abutments
with buttresses. Each option considered several common
issues: substructure design, lifting procedure, structural steel
design and construction staging.
A preliminary substructure analysis evaluated the stability
of the bridge abutment with the bridge in the new raised
position. The layout of the new abutment took into account
the necessity to provide a structure that provides a means
to raise the arch and also supports the arch once it is in its
new position.
The new abutment foundation footprint extends beyond
the existing rock bearing abutment footing in both
directions. The footing addition must be tied to the existing
footing within a coff erdam and made integral by drilling
and grouting reinforcement. The abutment walls consist of
a massive abutment stem with fi ve buttress (counterfort)
walls made integral with the existing abutment. The walls
are located to support the beams and equipment necessary
to raise the structure, and to resist the very large horizontal
thrust inherent in the arch. The dead load (DL) thrust must
be resisted as the arch progresses upward, so 10 2,000-ton
rollers would be attached at the bearing reaction locations
at each end of the arch. The rollers would rise vertically with
the arch and transit the thrust to the buttress walls.
The bridge vertical DL to be lifted is approximately 24,000
tons, with a simultaneous horizontal DL thrust of 16,000
tons at each end of the structure. The structure would be
lifted from overhead using approximately 16 990-ton high-
capacity strand-type jacks at each end. A lower lifting beam
would be constructed around the bridge bearings and span
beyond the bearings to lift the bridge with bearings intact.
An upper lifting beam would be constructed above the
lower lifting beam, spanning between abutment buttress
walls, on which the strand jacks would sit. The location
of the lifting beams would be between the end post of
the arch structure and the abutment tower, beneath the
roadway deck structure. Preparation for the structure jacking
is estimated to take about one year; however, the actual
jacking of the structure from existing to new elevation
would take only one day. The preparation process would not
aff ect roadway traffi c.
A preliminary design for the upper lifting beam was
performed. This beam is a steel box girder 10 feet wide by 12
feet deep, with a span of 165 feet, which is seated above the
lower lifting beam on bearings on the abutment buttress
walls. Once the structure has been raised to its fi nal elevation,
Roadway -> Bridges & Structures
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [28]
the bridge bearings must be permanently attached to the
new abutment stem wall.
As with the roadway raising theme, the options for raising the
arch require fi ve construction stages, with traffi c maintained
for at least one lane in each direction.
When considering the re-use of the existing arch, two
possibilities were considered for the approach spans: raise,
strengthen and seismically retrofi t the existing approach
substructure and construct a new superstructure; or
construct an entirely new approach structure in the footprint
of the existing one. Since the cross-section would be
constrained by the arch section, the same improved cross-
section would be used irrespective of being supported on a
retrofi tted or new substructure.
Retrofi tting the existing piers to the currently acceptable
standard is feasible but costly. When completed, the
proposed retrofi t schemes not only increase the structural
capacity for resisting seismic load, but also provide capacity
for the additional dead loads and other service loads due to
increased pier height, change of the pier confi guration and
widening of the roadway.
With regards to replacing the approach structure,
construction sequences were checked against the possibility
of using I-girder (steel or concrete) or segmental concrete
designs, and both were found to be feasible.
Build a New BridgeAn all new bridge option was developed on separate
alignments to the east and west of the existing bridge. In
addition to the roadway, the new bridge options included
provisions for a light rail transit system. Costs were also
generated for new bridge options without transit. It is
interesting to note that the original Bayonne Bridge design
did allow for transit, although it was never constructed. The
study did, however, include a check of the arch for a Light
Rail Transit (LRT) loading outboard of the arch chords and
it was found that, with some strengthening, the arch could
support the LRT in addition to vehicular traffi c.
Concepts were developed for three vertical clearances: 185
feet, 200 feet and 215 feet. The main span was established
as 1,600 feet and fl anking spans were set at 655 feet, for a
three-span unit of 2,910 feet. This three-span continuous
unit is detailed as a cable-stayed bridge with a composite
steel and concrete fl oor system. The off set of the new bridge
to the old bridge was determined to be 170 feet, based on
clearance to the existing bridge and its foundations. Because
of the historic nature of the existing bridge, it would be left
in place and the roadway removed to increase navigational
clearance. However, without raising the arch, navigational
clearance of the existing bridge lower chord would be
limited to 192 feet.
Consideration should also be given to a pylon (tower)
that has two legs straddling the roadway, e.g., a diamond
> The study team evaluated 24 options, with three main themes (left to right): raise the arch roadway within the confi nes of the existing arch; raise the entire existing arch by jacking; and construct an entirely new bridge. If a new bridge is constructed, the arch will remain after the roadway deck and approaches have been removed.
[29] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
shape. Removing the central pylon from the cross-section
would eliminate nearly 40 feet in cross-sectional width. This
extra width is carried down through the approaches until
transitioned out.
The approach structure for the new bridge options also
allow for transit. Since a central pylon was used for the
main span, two single-track guideways were used. To
minimize the footprint of the approaches, it was necessary
to transition the two single track systems into a common
dual track system. Costs were also generated for new bridge
approaches without transit.
Since the new bridge options will be constructed mostly on
a new alignment, there is no impact on the existing roadway
traffi c, and two lanes in each direction can be maintained.
Integration of the new facility with the existing at the
touchdowns will be the subject of further study.
FindingsBased on the evaluation of these 24 options, the least
expensive were those that reused the existing substructure
coupled with raising the roadway within the arch. Based
on a conceptual design eff ort, it has been determined that
the substructure can be retrofi tted to conform to AASHTO
seismic requirements. After retrofi tting and increasing the
profi le, a new superstructure will be provided.
The new bridge options range in structural cost from $1.275
billion for a 185-foot navigational clearance to $1.445 billion
for a 215-foot clearance. The new bridge options would
be a three span cable-stayed unit with a central pylon and
confi guration of 655 feet x 1,600 feet x 655 feet. It appears that
a main span of 1,700 feet would be a better fi t for horizontal
navigational clearances given that the arch foundations
would remain in place. Some cost savings would be realized
by considering a pylon that straddles (two towers) the cross-
section as opposed to the current envisaged central pylon.
Another benefi t of reusing the existing arch is that the
improvements stay within the footprint of the existing
facility so no expanded right-of-way is required. This is true
for the construction phase as well, although some limited
easements may be required. Since there are no right-of-way
issues, it is possible that only an Environmental Assessment
would be needed. The new bridge options would require
taking an estimated 86 parcels and a full Environmental
Impact Statement.
The next step will be to identify a smaller group of
alternatives to be refi ned, from which PANYNJ will select a
preferred alternative. ->
> Joseph LoBuono, P.E., is HDR’s Director
of Major Bridges, based in Newark,
N.J. Joseph has more than 41 years of
consulting engineering experience in the
fi eld of bridge design and construction.
He has extensive experience as project
manager/technical director for large,
multi-disciplinary projects, including
Dame Point Bridge, Sunshine Skyway
Bridge, Acosta Bridge, Edison Bridge
and Bayonne Bridge. Joe can be reached
at joseph.lobuono@hdrinc.com .
A U T H O R
[30]
As transportation infrastructure projects become
increasingly more sophisticated in detail and
collaborative in the delivery methods, so has
the technology used to design and build them.
Traditionally, 2-D drawings were the industry standard
for transportation engineering project design. The
evolution of Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) systems
and substantial increases in computing power have
facilitated expansion from 2-D to fully 3-D models.
Pushing the envelope even further, new innovations
now support the inclusion of project data that
goes beyond sizes, shapes and materials, eff ectively
incorporating schedule and fi nancial considerations
into what had been traditionally a design model. These
technologies include Visualization, Building Information
Modeling, and 4-D/5-D modeling, each of which adds
value to owners, designers, builders, operators and
maintenance.
VisualizationVisualization can be a valuable tool when working with
the public. This approach uses a model-based design to
simulate an experience of how the project will be built or
how it will operate when completed. These simulations
are especially useful for conveying the design intent to
individuals who may not understand typical 2-D plan
drawings. For example, Visualizations can be developed
to show the public how they may or may not be
directly impacted by a project. By creating a 3-D drive-
through simulation from the driver’s perspective, public
stakeholders can see how a project will aff ect driving
conditions during construction. By helping the public
better understand how they will be directly aff ected by
the project, design engineers give these stakeholders
the knowledge they need to eff ectively communicate
their opinions. It also validates that users of the system
were considered during the design of the project. For
designers, Visualization can provide a means for
higher-value design services by performing an
evaluation of non-physical metrics of a
project.
Moving
Beyo[31] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
nd 3-D [32]By Shawn Nelson, P.E., and Michael Watry, P.E.
> Shawn Nelson, P.E., is the IT Business
Service Consultant for HDR’s Transportation
program, based in Omaha, Neb. Shawn
has more than 10 years of experience in
highway design, survey and construction
fi eld services. He can be reached at
shawn.nelson@hdrinc.com .
> Michael Watry, P.E., is HDR’s Technical
Director for Project Controls, based in
Round Rock, Texas. Michael has eight
years of experience in engineering
design, project controls and application
development. He can be reached at
michael.watry@hdrinc.com .
A U T H O R S
Building Information ModelingBuilding Information Modeling (BIM) is an integrated
process of combining design metadata — information
related to a distinct physical element of the model itself —
with a 2-D/3-D model. Historically, BIM has primarily been
used in the design of building (or vertical) infrastructure
projects, but it is starting to fi nd increased popularity in civil
engineering market sectors.
BIM provides a collaborative reference during construction
and operation by allowing designers to embed various
design features such as material types into a digital model
while contractors provide construction-specifi c data into the
same model, which is particularly advantageous in design-
build scenarios. Supplementing traditional 2-D/3-D models
in this fashion enables better coordination of construction
activities with contractors and can facilitate faster response
times when a contractor submits requests for information.
When integrated with a 3-D model, BIM can be a useful tool
for engineers to communicate design intent to contractors
and project stakeholders.
Other industry-specifi c integrated processes that are
fundamentally similar to BIM are gaining traction. For
example, Bridge Information Modeling (BrIM) is becoming
increasingly popular in bridge design. BrIM integrates all of
the systems within a structure — from structural analysis
elements to bolted-connection details — into a single,
homogenous 3-D model. This approach is especially useful
for resolving confl icts through the use of clash detection.
BrIM also can be used to document how the bridge
was constructed, which is useful for maintenance and
rehabilitation throughout the bridge’s lifecycle.
4-D ModelingThe concept of 4-D modeling integrates a project builder’s
schedule or timeline with a designer’s 3-D model. The primary
objective is to visually communicate the construction plan,
limits of construction and scope of work to the project
stakeholders. By integrating a schedule into the model —
specifi cally, referencing a construction activity to one or
more model elements — the model can eff ectively show
how the project will be phased and built.
A Gantt chart or Project Evaluation and Review Technique
(PERT) diagram can be used to display sequences of events for
a project in diagrams, but with 4-D models the construction
strategy is more intuitively developed by the contractor and
communicable to project stakeholders. Because standard
scheduling formats tend to focus on the durations and
interrelationships of events during construction, rather than
physical objects, it may be diffi cult for many stakeholders to
step back and visualize the big picture.
4-D models also can be used in retrospect to intuitively show
the project as actually constructed. Utilizing the contractor’s
“resource loaded” schedules, where each activity is further
described by the required labor and equipment, 4-D models
are eff ective in practical constructability reviews before
construction, which is another advantage in a design-build
delivery. For example, construction equipment and crews
can be added to a 3-D model (by means of association with
a given activity), thus identifying when each will be located
within the project corridor. When constructability and
phasing are evaluated during the design in collaboration
with the contractor, engineers can use this information
to create designs that allow the contractor to work more
effi ciently — economizing resources and providing a direct
benefi t to the owner.
5-D ModelingThe idea of 5-D modeling is fairly new to the construction
industry, but the value it brings to the owner is increasing
its appeal. As the 4-D modeling process enhances a 3-D
design model by adding a time component to describe
constructability, 5-D brings the element of fi nancial data to
the model. This new dimension adds signifi cant complexity
to the model, where physical elements, schedule activities
and cost items must all be interoperable. For this reason,
usage of such models is gaining popularity under Capital
Program Management contracts where the designer is one
of many participants involved.
5-D modeling can be used to discretely analyze equipment,
material, and labor cost impacts for the project. This
information is benefi cial for tracking real-time costs and
[33] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
tying that data to the project schedule, allowing changes to
the fi nancials of a project to be monitored and evaluated by
stakeholders. Moreover, by evaluating the impact of changes
before construction work commences, these integrated
cost and schedule data sets provide a clearer picture of risks,
issues and pitfalls before they are encountered.
ConclusionSoftware platforms for project controls (e.g., scheduling,
estimating, etc.) analysis, and design engineering
are becoming highly sophisticated to facilitate such
collaborative involvement. However, signifi cant attention
must be paid to quality control to avoid “garbage in, garbage
out” from occurring in models with the numerous sources
of data compiled in single, integrated sources. In addition,
guiding principles such as those published by the American
Institute of Architects (AIA) ensure that risks are assigned
to those parties that are best prepared to manage them:
design responsibility remains with the designer of record
while construction means and methods remain with the
contractor.
These techniques make it possible to integrate any number
of dimensions, or layers of information, to models that
traditionally were reserved for physical design elements.
When properly applied, the advancements in modeling
discussed in this article add signifi cant value throughout a
project’s lifecycle. ->
Technical Excellence -> Design Innovation
[34]
NEW LIGHTNEW LIGHT Shedding In 2008, Newark Liberty International
Airport (EWR) handled slightly more
than 35.3 million passengers, making
it the 12th busiest airport in the United
States. The Bureau of Transportation
Statistics also ranks Newark as the
nation’s fi fth busiest international air
gateway. The Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), which
operates Newark Liberty, recently
led a project to rehabilitate Runway
11/29, the oldest of the airport’s three
runways. PANYNJ hired HDR to assist
with upgrading the runway’s electrical
systems, duct banks and lighting to
meet current FAA requirements.
Airport HistoryOpened in 1928, Newark Liberty was
the fi rst airport in the country to have
a paved runway and also was home
to the fi rst commercial airline terminal
and air traffi c control center. The
airport is about 15 miles southwest of
Midtown Manhattan and covers 2,027
acres. In addition to Runway 11/29,
Newark Liberty features a pair of
parallel runways — 4L/22R and 4R/22L
— and one helipad. The airport is the
second-largest hub for Continental
Airlines, which is EWR’s largest tenant,
operating from all of Terminal C and
most of Terminal A. Federal Express
is Newark Liberty’s second largest
tenant, operating from three buildings
on 2 million square feet within the
airport complex.
Runway 11/29 is part of the original
paved runway system developed
during the 1940s. The other runway
approaches are equipped with
Instrument Landing Systems (ILS), and
Runway 4R is certifi ed for Category
II ILS approaches. As a result, most
departing traffi c uses Runway 4L/22R,
and most arriving traffi c uses 4R/22L.
Runway 11/29 is used more often by
smaller commuter aircraft or when
there are strong crosswinds on the
two main runways.
Lighting the WayThe original scope of work for the
rehabilitation of Runway 11/29 and
intersecting taxiway lighting included: • In-depth fi eld survey of existing
taxiways and runway conditions• Survey of electrical rooms, duct
banks and electrical systems, and
lighting and guidance signs• Survey of airside navigational
lighting aides for taxiway
and runway areas (including
centerline and runway guard
bars on 9,000 feet of runway and
taxiway area) • Demolition of existing taxiway
lighting system• Demolition of all runway lighting
systems
The Runway 11/29 rehabilitation
project began with extensive time
studying existing documents to
prepare for detailed fi eld reviews and
investigations. The scheduling of all
airport activities for fi eld, design and
construction eff orts was reviewed in
detail because the airport would not
be closed for any of the required fi eld
work. However, the runway did have
limited traffi c each night between
10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
[35] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
on Newark Liberty’s Oldest RunwayBy Mark Dikun
Aviation -> Runway Lighting
> Runway 11/29 now features an all-new lighting system, including touchdown zone lights.
[36]
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
The review showed that all runway
lighting was in need of replacement,
to include new fi xtures and
infrastructure. The existing fi xtures
were prone to downtime from such
events as snow plows hitting the
outer shell of the older fi xtures and
ripping them out of the ground.
To further extend service life, light
assemblies that were installed along
the taxiway proper and runway
proper used stainless steel base cans
to better withstand the eff ects of
environmental conditions, such as
deicing fl uid.
The runway edge lights were
upgraded using an alternating
confi guration powered by two
separate circuits, allowing one of
the circuits to fail and, with minimal
changes, keep the runway open. As
with the survey phase of the project,
all design, documentation and staging
had to be completed in a manner that
allowed the runway to remain active
except during scheduled night and
weekend closures.
Because Runway 11/29 has no
approach lighting, the project team
was asked to investigate the use of
touchdown zone lights (TDZs) to
assist pilots on their approach. It
was determined that TDZs could be
installed, so they were included in the
design for both the 29 and 11 runway
ends. All runways at Newark Liberty
now utilize TDZs.
> A partial view of the new Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) system for Runway 11/29 can be seen in the lower left corner of this photo just prior to the start of the runway.
[37]
© Ke
ith Ph
ilpot
t
The new taxiway centerline lighting system contains
primary wiring according to civil paving plans using the
FAA approved spacing for clearance bars for a Group IV
aircraft rating. New runway lighting consists of centerline
lighting and edge lighting, runway end identifi cation lights,
touchdown zone lighting (approach lights), land and hold
short lights, threshold and displaced-threshold lighting,
runway guard bar lighting (both elevated and inset fi xtures),
distance-to-go signs and guidance signs.
The infrastructure in this runway area is one of the oldest at
the airfi eld because Runway 11/29 was part of the original
runway system and the original main terminal was located
just a few hundred yards north of it. The project team knew
from prior experience working with Newark Liberty that the
main electrical vaults had been rehabilitated and upgraded
over time and that a new Electrical Vault #3 recently was
installed on the south end of the airport. The team reviewed
the latest work on the electrical vaults (three vaults in total)
and did fi eld work to establish their current condition.
The new design incorporated upgrades to Electrical Vault
#1 using regulators that were made spare during work in
Electrical Vault #2. The team also reviewed the use of new
regulators in Electrical Vault #3 to guarantee that all planned
loads were transferred to this facility before using regulators
in Electrical Vault #2. Detailed documentation of this design
facilitated staging the work so it could be accomplished
with minimal coordination issues.
A Job Well DoneDetailed surveys, documentation and staging limited
the electrical requests for information generated during
construction of this project to only two. The end result was a
design and construction process that met or exceeded the
schedules originally set by PANYNJ.
The schedule for the airfi eld work was originally planned to
start in 2008 and be completed in 2009. The actual schedule
was driven by the PANYNJ construction manager along with
feedback from the general contractor. The construction had
minimal eff ect on use of the facility. ->
> Mark Dikun is a Project Manager in
HDR’s Newark, N.J., offi ce. Mark has
36 years of experience in electrical,
mechanical and structural design,
including lighting for runways,
approaches and taxiways and airport
switch houses. He can be reached at
mark.dikun@hdrinc.com .
A U T H O R
> Reviewing FAA design requirements for toe-in on the touchdown zone lights.
TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED www.hdrinc.com [38]
After decades of transportation often over-powering
community, there is now a strong movement to integrate
community and mobility. Furthermore, transportation
professionals are more often incorporating environmental
and economic considerations to the planning process to form
more comprehensive and sustainable solutions.
One clear expression of how important this integrating concept
is can be found in the new partnership recently announced
between three federal agencies: the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation
and the Environmental Protection Agency. Together, they
are implementing the Sustainable Communities Initiative as a means of coordinating their housing, land use, mobility,
energy and aff ordability programs. Central to the success of
the initiative are six livability principles:• Provide more transportation choices• Promote equitable, aff ordable housing• Enhance economic competitiveness• Support existing communities• Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment• Value communities and neighborhoods
In a statement to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing
and Urban Aff airs, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood
said “Our goal is to build livable communities, where safe,
convenient and aff ordable transportation is available to all
people… Strategies that support mixed-use development,
mixed-income communities and multiple transportation
options help to reduce traffi c congestion, pollution and
energy use.”
President Obama showed further support of the concept
of integrated planning in an executive order signed Oct. 5,
2009. Titled Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and
Economic Performance, the order emphasized the importance
of regional transportation planning and included language
stating that sites for new federal facilities should be “pedestrian
friendly, near existing employment centers, and accessible to
public transit, and emphasize existing central cities and, in
rural communities, existing or planned town centers.”
Whether you call it Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) or
sustainable community planning, it’s clear that the federal
government supports a positive trend toward integrating
mobility with all aspects of daily life. What does it mean for the
transportation infrastructure industry? We expect more eff orts
to improve mobility in urban and suburban environments
— from great streets projects that promote walkable retail,
commercial and residential communities to expanded transit
options such as light rail and bus rapid transit.
Two recent HDR projects refl ect this integrated approach to
community and mobility. The SR 520 reconstruction project,
which includes a critical bridge, highway and high-capacity
transit link between Seattle and its eastern suburbs, features a
high level of integration. The facility aff ected, and is aff ected by,
abutting neighborhoods, sensitive environmental resources,
historical and cultural sites. Using a comprehensive CSS
approach, the proposed improvements addressed local land
use and mobility planning goals. For example, placing “caps”
with usable space over the highway at key locations helped
unite communities that were once divided. With the addition
of high capacity transit, SR 520 demonstrates how community
and mobility needs are met and exceeded.
In North Carolina, three communities
came together to develop the “Heart
of the Triad,” a land use planning eff ort
between Greensboro, Winston-Salem
and High Point. Each city saw the
benefi t of working together to create
“continued economic growth, while
managing a sustainable and livable
community through thoughtful development.” Central to the
success of this initiative was the coordinated approach to
land use and mobility. Through proper allocation of land uses,
required lanes of highway were reduced, congestion levels
moderated, open space saved and air quality improved. ->
By David Taylor, CNU
Policy Outlook -> Sustainability
[ “Our goal is to build livable communities,
where safe, convenient and aff ordable
transportation is available to all people...”
— Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation ]
P O L I C Y O U T L O O Kt h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d c o m m u n i t y c o n n e c t i o n
> David Taylor, CNU, is HDR’s Director of
Sustainable Transportation Solutions,
based in Tampa, Fla. David has more than
25 years of experience with public and
private planning projects, with emphasis
in strategic planning, project positioning,
town planning and urban design. He can
be reached at david.taylor@hdrinc.com .
A U T H O R
[39] www.hdrinc.com TRANSPORTATION DELIVERED
www.hdrinc.com
Directions
www.hdrinc.com/transit
Providing safe and effi cient public transportation options is a goal of communities everywhere. But selecting the best modal choice, securing funding and garnering public acceptance can be a daunting task.
HDR’s transit team can guide you in the right direction. In addition to traditional planning and design capabilities, our multi-modal experts are skilled in FTA processes, economic analysis and alternative delivery. Across the globe, we’re helping communities turn transit visions into successful mobility solutions.
No matter which direction you are heading, HDR can get you there.
2498
120
9
8404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE 68114-4049
www.hdrinc.com
Pape
r con
tain
s 30%
pos
t-co
nsum
er fi
berPRSRT STD
US POSTAGEPAID
OMAHA, NEPERMIT NO. 963
Fall/Winter 2009
D E L I V E R E DT R A N S P O R TAT I O N >
A W O R D F R O M T H E D I R E C T O R
In June we introduced Transportation Delivered,
which combined our BridgeLine, Rail Line, TransitLine
and TransportLine newsletters into a single, magazine-
style publication. Response has been overwhelmingly
positive, and we thank you for your readership.
At HDR, our goal is to help our clients keep people and freight moving
safely and effi ciently, whether by land, sea or air. Transportation
Delivered showcases the work of our talented and dedicated staff
across all modes of transportation. Perhaps more importantly, it
highlights the interrelatedness of our transportation networks and the
need to work across modal lines and geographic boundaries to provide
comprehensive and sustainable mobility solutions.
The word sustainability is thrown around a lot these days. At HDR,
sustainability isn’t an add-on to what we do; it’s an integral part of the
way we do business. This issue of Transportation Delivered is a testament
to how we work to balance the environmental, community and
economic needs of our built environments. Our feature story on New
Orleans’ eff ort to revive its streetcar system (pg. 1) is a prime example of
how a well-planned transportation system can revitalize a community.
The redevelopment of the Western Rail Yard in Manhattan (pg. 6) is
not only an important economic development initiative for New York
City, it is also being planned to incorporate a number of sustainable
features, including energy and water conservation measures that will
facilitate LEED accreditation. And our piece on the Port of Long Beach’s
Green Port Policy (pg. 21) demonstrates eff orts underway to reduce
transportation’s impact on the environment.
Policy Outlook: The Transportation and Community Connection (pg.
39) pulls all of these themes together. There is greater recognition in
the industry that transportation directly impacts our communities, and
that integrated land-use planning is essential to creating more livable
communities. I’m proud of the work our professionals are doing to assist
in these important eff orts. After all, these are our communities, too.
Eric L. Keen, Director of Transportation
Eric Keen, P.E.
Director of Transportationeric.keen@hdrinc.com
Nichole Andersen
Director of Planning & Communicationsnichole.andersen@hdrinc.com
Ken Wall
Editorken.wall@hdrinc.com
Technical Contributors to this Issue:
Stephen Beard
Transit Market Sector Directorstephen.beard@hdrinc.com Brent Felker, P.E.
West Region Transportation Directorbrent.felker@hdrinc.com Neil Lucey, P.E.
Northeast Area Transportation Directorneil.lucey@hdrinc.com Mel Placilla, P.E.
Director of Professional Servicesmel.placilla@hdrinc.com
Dorri Raposa
Director of Consulting Servicesdorri.raposa@hdrinc.com Tom Smithberger, P.E.
Freight Railroad Market Sector Directortom.smithberger@hdrinc.com Rob Turton, P.E., S.E.
Technical Director for Structuresrob.turton@hdrinc.com
Transportation Delivered is produced twice yearly by HDR. Direct subscription inquiries and address changes to ken.wall@hdrinc.com . To view this publication electronically, go to: www.hdrinc.com/transportationdelivered .
A B O U T H D R
E D I T O R I A L B O A R D
HDR is an employee-owned architectural, engineering
and consulting fi rm that helps clients manage complex
projects and make sound decisions.
As an integrated fi rm, HDR provides a total spectrum
of services for our clients. Our staff of more than 7,800
professionals in 185-plus locations worldwide represent
hundreds of disciplines and partner on blended teams
throughout North America and abroad to provide
solutions beyond the scope of traditional A/E/C fi rms.
To learn more about what HDR’s Transportation
program can do for you, visit us on the Web at
www.hdrinc.com/transportation .
top related