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 .