volume 21, issue 6 December 2014 | January 2015

Governmental affairs

G E O R G I A

ENGINEER®

ATLANTA STREETCARS 1874-1901

GPTQ AWARDS

2 GEORGIA EnGInEER

Publisher: A4 Inc.

1154 Lower Birmingham Road

Canton, Georgia 30115

770-521-8877 | Fax: 770-521-0406

E-mail: p.frey@a4inc.com

Editor-in-chief: Roland Petersen-Frey

Managing Editor: Daniel Simmons

Art Direction/Design: Pam Petersen-Frey

Georgia Engineering Alliance

233 Peachtree Street

Harris Tower, #700

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

404-521-2324 | Fax: 404-521-0283

Georgia Engineer Editorial board

Thomas C. Leslie, Chair

Michael L. (Sully) Sullivan,

ACEC Georgia, President

Shawna Mercer,

ACEC Georgia, Director of

Communications & Government Affairs

AcEc/Georgia Representatives

B.J. Martin, PE

Lee Philips

AScE/G Representatives

Daniel Agramonte, PE

Steven C. Seachrist, PE

ASHE Representative

Jenny Jenkins, PE

GSPE Representatives

Tim Glover, PE

ITE Representatives

Daniel Dobry, PE, PTOE

John Edwards, PE

ITS/G Representatives

Bill Wells, PE

Shaun Green, PE

Kay Wolfe, PE

SAmE Representative

Pamela Little, PE

SEAOG Representative

Rob Wellacher, PE

WTS Representative

Angela Snyder

The Georgia Engineer is published bi-monthly by A4 Inc. for the Georgia Engineering Al-

liance and sent to members of ACEC, ASCE, ASHE, GEF, GSPE, ITE, SAME, SEAOG, WTS; local,

state, and Federal government officials and agencies; businesses and institutions. Opinions ex-

pressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the Alliance or publisher nor do they ac-

cept responsibility for errors of content or omission and, as a matter of policy, neither do they

endorse products or advertisements appearing herein. Parts of this periodical may be repro-

duced with the written consent from the Alliance and publisher. Correspondence regarding

address changes should be sent to the Alliance at the address above. Correspondence regard-

ing advertising and editorial material should be sent to A4 Inc. at the address listed above.

G E O R G I A

ENGINEER

DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015 3

ADvERTISEmEnTS

American Engineering Inc..............................................................25

AMEC ....................................................................................................3

Burns & McDonnell .........................................................................25

Cardno .................................................................................................31

Columbia Engineering .......................................................................3

CROM Corporation............................................................................6

Edwards-Pitman Environmental Inc. ...........................................19

Engineered Restorations Inc. ...........................................................5

Georgia 811...........................................................Inside Back Cover

Hayward Baker .................................................................Back Cover

Hazen & Sawyer................................................................................19

HDR .....................................................................................................25

JAT..........................................................................................................6

Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. ................................................24

MH Miles Company ..........................................................................6

Nova Engineering ...............................................................................8

Pond Company ..................................................................................31

Prime Engineering Inc........................................................................3

Reinforced Earth Company............................................................33

RHD Utility Locating........................................................................32

ROSSER .................................................................................................8

S&ME...................................................................................................31

Schnabel Engineering ......................................................................31

Stevenson & Palmer .........................................................................31

STV.......................................................................................................31

Terrell Hundley Carroll Right of Way Services ..........................31

T•H•C .................................................................................................28

TTL .........................................................................................................6

T. Wayne Owens & Associates, PC.............................................24

United Consulting..............................................Inside Front Cover

Vaughn & Melton ...............................................................................4

Wolverton & Associates...................................................................6

GEORGIA EnGInEER4

T a b l e o f

CONTENTS GEORGIA ENGINEER December 2014 | January 2015

GPTQ Awards ......................................................................................................7

Atlanta Streetcars 1874-1901 ........................................................................14

Maintaining for Success: considerations for green infrastructure

operations & maintenance | part two .....................................................17

Georgia’s stormwater management manual: helping to protect

water quality in Georgia ...........................................................................22

The crooked yardstick - redefining success...............................................24

2014 Intelligent Transportation Society of Georgia’s

Best of ITS Award Winners......................................................................26

Engineering News.............................................................................................28

ACEC Georgia ...................................................................................................34

ASCE Georgia ....................................................................................................36

GSPE Georgia ....................................................................................................38

ITE Georgia ........................................................................................................40

ITS Georgia ........................................................................................................42

SAME Atlanta ...................................................................................................44

WTS Atlanta......................................................................................................45

GPTQ AWARDS 7

Leake mounds Interpretive Trail -

Tribal Representatives

DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015 5

6 GEORGIA EnGInEER

vISIT uS AT

THEGEORGIAEnGInEER.cOm

FEATURE

7DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

GPTQ AWARDS

GRAND AWARD

The construction project was ‘let’ in April

2014 to C.W. Matthews for $103 million

and will take approximately five years for

acquisition of Right of Way and Construc-

tion. The project will improve traffic flow,

eliminate multiple at-grade railroad cross-

ings, and increase pedestrian and vehicle

safety through downtown Douglasville

and SR 92.

This project was selected as the Grand

Prize winner as it exceeded numerous de-

sign criteria categories.

Highway Design Urban Criteria were

exceeded when the project team success-

fully developed construction documents

for the SR 92 project that included a six-

lane (three each direction) urban section

with a 20’ raised landscaped median and

urban shoulders. The project includes the

construction of SR 92 under the existing SR

5/US 78 Bankhead Highway, Norfolk

Southern (NFS) RR, and Strickland Street

to create a grade-separated underpass.

The gross length of the project is 3.1 miles

and includes three new bridges, ten new

signals, seven signal modifications; a pre-

emptive fire station signal, an adjacent

multi-use trail along the entire corridor;

noise barriers, and LED lighting for pedes-

trian intersections.

The design required three bridges for the

grade separations of SR 92 beneath East

Strickland Street, Norfolk Southern Rail-

way, and Bankhead Highway. Each of the

proposed structures is a single span,

roughly 130 feet long, supported by full-

height cantilevered concrete abutments

on rock. The railroad bridge will accom-

modate three tracks and consists of a bal-

lasted concrete deck on steel plate girders.

The two vehicular bridges will carry multi-

ple lanes of traffic and consist of concrete

decks on PSC Bulb Tee girders. To achieve

the required vertical clearance at each

bridge, the relocated SR 92 will be de-

pressed below existing grade by a maxi-

mum of thirty feet using permanently

anchored retaining walls and bridge abut-

ments to retain existing grade.

Following is a listing of design ele-

ments the design team successfully ac-

complished which significantly exceeded

the criteria for Urban Design:

• Development of fast track urban

road design schedule

• Completion of complex bridge

designs

• Innovative staging for construction

• Design approval from the railroads

• Public Interest Determination (PID)

utility co-ordinations and approvals

• Accelerated right-of-way acquisition

Context Sensitive Design/Public Participa-

tion Criteria were exceeded when, after

two years of public coordination in the de-

cision-making process, consensus was ob-

tained from all citizens affected by the

relocation of SR 92.

Accomplishments included:

• All segments of the impacted

populations involved through

stakeholder meetings, workshops,

door-to-door communications, Web

sites (http://gahwy92.com/) and

public meetings

• Spanish populations reached by

Spanish translators

• Business community meetings

discussed impacts to businesses for

both during and post construction

• The school system helped

coordinate staging to reduce

impacts to student arrivals and

departures

• Local residents and commuters were

engaged to discuss potential

displacements, impacts, and project

improvements

• Through the context sensitive design

process, solutions incorporated into

the final plans include:

• Specially designed noise barriers

with brick facades, retaining walls

with noise barriers constructed on-

top Signalization, and a preemptive

fire station signal

Pedestrian enhancements

• Landscaping

• Lighting

• Customized parking at Jesse Davis

Park

8 GEORGIA EnGInEER

• Elimination of several at-grade

railroad crossings

The Criteria for NEPA, Environmental Pro-

tection, Historic Preservation, and En-

hancement were exceeded as the

EA/FONSI and re-evaluation addressed a

wide range of issues concerning the cul-

tural, social, and natural environments

within the corridor, including environ-

mental justice, Section 4(f)/6(f) impacts to

historic resources and recreational facili-

ties, endangered species, and significant

impacts to jurisdictional waters requiring

an Individual Permit issued through the

USACE. Accomplishments included:

• Added the listing of the federally

protected Indiana bat

• Fish & Wildlife approval without

delaying the let date

• Approvals for the transfer of land

from both the Georgia Department

of Natural Resources (GADNR) and

the National Park Service (NPS)

avoiding impacts to the let date.

Other noted accomplishments exceeding

criteria include:

Staging: The project team designed three

parallel bridges including the one NFS RR

Bridge. To accomplish this, while main-

taining traffic on Bankhead Highway and

the active NFS RR, the project team de-

signed the relocation of a temporary rail-

road shoe-fly track and a temporary

Bankhead Highway realignment. To com-

plicate construction even further, railroad

traffic will be maintained without inter-

ruption throughout construction. The

staging plans provide access to the school,

parks, and businesses throughout the en-

tire construction period. The project also

includes several detours along with a com-

prehensive traffic management plan that

was approved by FHWA.

Railroad coordination: Bankhead High-

way and Strickland Street are both within

the NFS RR right-of-way and due to the

complex nature of the bridge construction

and the staging plans the project, involved

intense coordination with NFS RR. The

project team met with NFS RR throughout

the life of the project and worked dili-

gently to address the railroad’s concerns

and requirements.

utility coordination: This is the first full

utility Public Interest Determination (PID)

project that the state of Georgia let. All of

the utility reconstructions were included

in the construction package for the con-

tractor to construct. This process required

intensive weekly utility coordination for

the entire project team.

Accelerated Right-of-Way Acquisition

Within 30 months. The project team ac-

quired 247 parcels, most of which were

commercial properties with multiple ten-

ants. Sixty-nine parcels had structures that

were demolished to clear the required

right-of-way necessary for the project con-

struction. The right-of-way acquisition

team successfully met the thirty-month

schedule for right-of-way certification.

The trophy name is: uRS Inc.

Team members:

• URS - Erick Fry and Nick Castronova,

Scott Caples & Patrick Smith

• GDOT - Project Manager,

Peter Emanual

9DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

CATEGORY 1

SR 11 had experienced severe rutting due

to an extremely high percentage of truck

traffic. Trucks consist of approximately 15

percent of the total traffic in this corridor.

Pre-cast concrete panels were determined

to be the most cost effective solution for

this road reconstruction.

The project consisted of replacing ap-

proximately three-quarters of a mile of

pavement with pre-cast concrete panels.

This was the first use of this technology on

a roadway in Georgia. The panels were

fabricated by a pre-cast concrete vendor

in Winder and transported to the project

site and installed at night. This allowed a

minimal amount of construction related

congestion, and the roadway was re-

opened each day to traffic. The offsite con-

crete fabrication also allowed the

construction to continue, despite record

winter weather during the construction

period, and the project finished two

months ahead of schedule.

Lt. Governor Casey Cagle said at the

ribbon cutting ceremony: “This is the way

roads should be built,” noting the use of

innovative road building techniques and

the superb aesthetics of the project.

The SR 11 project proved not only the

successful use of a new product but also a

construction technique that delivered the

project ahead of schedule while minimiz-

ing disruption to motorists.

The trophy name is: GDOT-Roadway

Design

Team member: Eric Rohde

10 GEORGIA EnGInEER

CATEGORY 3

SR 144 extends through Richmond Hill and

southeast Bryan County along the

Ogeechee River corridor.

This project consisted of reconstruct-

ing SR 144 from two travel lanes to four

travel lanes with a 20-foot raised median

for a distance of five miles including side-

walk and bicycle access. Public involve-

ment was to be a crucial part of the

project’s success along with a first sub-

mission Draft EA document that would re-

quire minimal revisions. Adrian

Collaborative was able to accomplish

these goals by implementing the following

strategies:

• nEPA innovations such as producing

documents with reader-friendly

formats by using simplified language

and creative images that considered

the local reader’s perspective.

• creative and effective public

involvement which included

widespread use of social media

advertising of the public meetings and

new format for handouts.

Community engagement including

personal discussions with local

stakeholders gave the project team

insight on locally important resources

and preferred access points for

pedestrians.

• Integration of new technology

helped enhance the understanding of

readers and public meeting

participants. Relevant smartphone

(QR) codes and URL links were added

to the EA pages, bringing social media

and online tools into the report itself.

An interactive PDF version of the EA

was created with cross reference and

online hyperlinks. This PDF file was

made available for use at the local

library on their seven workstations.

• Protection and enhancement of

resources are local priorities and

were part of the EA. Examples include

protecting not only all eligible historic

properties, but also local resources

from the unique past of Richmond Hill

as a Henry Ford plantation and work

community. In addition to preserving

historic markers and Ford fencing, the

project meets sustainable goals of

improving access for walking and

biking between neighborhoods and

adjacent land uses. Many of the

adjacent wetlands and essential fish

habitat will be preserved, while

mitigation for unavoidable impacts

will be located nearby in the

Ogeechee River basin.

The trophy name is: Adrian collaborative

Team members:

NEPA/Public Involvement, Todd Barker

GIS Planner, Martin Rose

Public Involvement Analysis, Stenka

Vulova and Heather Hatzenbuhler

GDOT: Project managers- Matt Bennett

(2010-2014) and Michelle Wright (2014-

present)

Public Involvement Support- Maggie

Yoder – District 5 Planning and Program-

ming Engineer

Environmental Services Support-

Michael Murdoch and Paul Alimia

Note: Category 2 was eliminated.

CATEGORY 4

The Georgia Department of Transporta-

tion has recently completed a public out-

reach project associated with the

widening of SR 61/SR 113 in Bartow

County. This public outreach project was

related to the mitigation of a National Reg-

ister of Historic Places eligible archaeology

site, known as the Leake Site. The Leake

Site is an American Indian archaeological

site that is located along the Etowah River

southwest of Cartersville, Georgia. The site

contains the remains of an American In-

dian occupation that lasted from approxi-

mately 300 B.C. until 650 A.D. The site was

excavated in advance of the widening of

State Highway 61/113, with over 50,000

square feet excavated. The Leake Site ar-

chaeological investigation revealed that

this site represents a major center during

the prehistoric Middle Woodland period,

figuring prominently in the interaction

among peoples from throughout the

Southeastern and the Midwestern United

States.

One of the components of this proj-

ect was the development of an interpre-

tive trail through the Leake Site. The

Leake Mounds Interpretive Trail is a 1.5

mile loop that contains 18 interpretive

panels and one kiosk which present infor-

mation on the archaeology of the Leake

Site as well as the surrounding natural and

11DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

cultural landscape. This project developed

out of a unique partnership between fed-

eral, tribal, state, and local entities. The

trail panels were designed by the Univer-

sity of West Georgia, in consultation with

GDOT, FHWA, SHPO, and several federally-

recognized tribes, while the trail itself was

developed by the city of Cartersville Parks

& Recreation dept. and Bartow County

Public Works, with aid from GDOT.

The trail is situated on green space

owned by Bartow County and the city of

Cartersville, a space which is intended to

protect remaining portions of the Leake

archaeological site from development, as

well as provide recreation for local resi-

dents. The trail was designed to be con-

text sensitive, using locally sourced,

natural stone as gravel, coursing across

the natural landscape, and not involving

excavation so that archaeologically sensi-

tive subsurface remains were not harmed.

In addition, the trail was developed with a

mobile Web site component so that addi-

tional information is available to the trail

user (via a smart phone or tablet) AND so

that the trail can be more accessible to

users that cannot make the 1.5 mile jour-

ney. The trail was dedicated in October

2013. All project partners were present in-

cluding five of the federally-recognized

tribes.

The trophy name is:

GDOT - Environmental Services

Team members:

Pam Baughman, GDOT, Project Manager

• Dr. Ann McCleary, University of West

Georgia Center for Public History

• Greg Anderson, City of Cartersville

Parks & Recreation

• Bryan Tucker, State Archaeologist,

Georgia DNR-Historic Preservation

Division

• Katy Allen, Environmental Team

Leader, FHWA

• Muscogee (Creek) Nation

• Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana

• Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

• Thlopthlocco Tribal Town

• Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma

• United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee

Indians

CATEGORY 5

The well known congestion at the GA 400

/ I-85 interchange was vastly improved by

the addition of this project. The project

added two ramps which provide connec-

tions for I-85 southbound to GA 400 north-

bound and GA 400 southbound to I-85

northbound. The project also included the

construction of a half pedestrian trail.

The design-build team of Archer

Western Contractors and Heath Lineback

Engineers were awarded the project and

incorporated several innovative design el-

ements into the project. The design-build

team shortened one of the proposed

bridges by 650 feet by modifying the

geometry of the original design. They also

used deck widening, cap extension, and

sign pier/beam layout to reduce super

structure and sub-structure costs on one

of the bridges.

There were significant challenges

from existing utilities as well. In order to

avoid existing utilities, the Archer Western

/ Heath & Lineback team incorporated:

1) A straddle bent cap with pile footing

to avoid an existing sanitary sewer

line in Sidney Marcus Blvd.

2) A four-cassion foundation was

designed to allow retention of a

sanitary sewer line buried deep

beneath I-85

3) A drilled shaft at Cheshire Bridge was

employed to avoid an AT&T duct

bank.

The cost savings associated with avoid-

ance of city of Atlanta sewer lines was

around $1Million. In all, the project con-

struction came in almost $10 million less

than the original estimate.

Former mayor of Atlanta and presi-

dent of the Buckhead Coalition said that

“this is an extremely important project for

both Buckhead and Atlanta, and there are

tremendous benefits that are going to

come from it. I think the riding public will

be very pleasantly surprised.”

The GA 400 / I-85 Connector Ramps

project is an outstanding example of su-

perior bridge and structural design that

will benefit Atlanta commuters for years

to come.

The trophy name is:

Heath & Lineback Engineers

Team members: John Heath

and Phil Ravotti

GDOT - Loren Bartlett

12 GEORGIA EnGInEER

CATEGORY 6

The Windy Hill Road and Interstate 75 di-

verging diamond interchange project is a

good example of a project that meets the

objectives of the traffic safety/intersection

design category.

Windy Hill Road is a heavily-con-

gested east-west arterial through Cobb

County in metro Atlanta. The area around

the interchange currently experiences

crash rates three times the state average,

while injury rates in those crashes are dou-

ble the state average. Traffic volumes are

expected to increase 15 percent in the

short term. The Atlanta Braves new sta-

dium and mixed-use development will fur-

ther increase congestion in the area.

The diverging diamond interchange

eliminates left turns at traffic signals, and

has been shown to be successful at reduc-

ing crashes and increasing safety. In this

location, traffic flow is increased with the

addition of through lanes, without the

need to reconstruct the existing bridge

over I-75.

The diverging diamond interchange at

Windy Hill Road and I-75 is a successful

partnership between Cobb County and the

Cumberland Community Improvement

District. The project will prove to be a cost

effective solution to increasing safety and

operational efficiency.

The trophy name is:

moreland Altobelli Inc.

Team members:

Moreland Altobelli: Buddy Gratton, Brad

Hale, Chris Kingsbury, and Joe McGrew

Cumberland CID - James Hudgens w/

ARCADIS

CATEGORY 7

The Canton Road and Georgia Northeast-

ern Railroad over US 41 (Cobb Parkway)

project increased safety and mobility for

multiple transportation modes in an urban

setting. The dense development in the

area surrounding this intersection led to a

high volume of pedestrian and vehicular

traffic at this location. The project also cor-

rected substandard and/or functionally

obsolete bridges over US 41.

Strong coordination among stake-

holders was essential to keep the project

moving and to ensure that the interest of

the various stakeholders were considered

and project goals met. The project team

streamlined the design process with dili-

gent cooperative input from the Georgia

Northeastern Railroad and GDOT.

With less than standard vertical and

horizontal clearances, the bridges were

routinely hit and caused bottlenecks on a

major north-south corridor in Cobb

County. In addition, pedestrians could not

travel the area safely due to a lack of facil-

ities and insufficient clearances.

The ultimate project solution mini-

mized impacts to adjacent rights of way,

maintenance of traffic requirements for

the roadway and railroad, and railroad op-

erations.

Constant coordination, communica-

tion, and partnering of the project stake-

holders and each partner’s desire to see

this critical project come to fruition made

this project a success story. Strong GDOT

Project Management leadership helped

ensure the project ultimately was let on

schedule and under budget.

The trophy name is: ARcADIS

Team members: Arcadis – Keith Kunst

and Shamir Poudel

GDOT - PM Kim Nesbit

Looking West at the finished project and

showing the roadway and railroad bridges

over US 41, the spur and at-grade railroad

crossing, and the signalized pedestrian

crossing required for the project.

13DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

CATEGORY 9

This Design-Build (DB) project constructed

an auxiliary lane from Eagles Landing Park-

way/Hudson Bridge Road north to I-675 in

Henry County. To accommodate the new

lane, widening, and future managed lanes,

the Walt Stephens Road/Red Oak Road

Bridge was replaced. The DB team pro-

posed to move the bridge further north

than the RFP provided costing plans to

provide separation between it and the ex-

isting bridge, thereby reducing the num-

ber of construction stages. The overhead

utility lines in that area were moved to the

south side of bridge and bored beneath

the interstate; this required extensive pre-

proposal coordination between the DB

team and the affected utility owners. In an

effort to get the construction started and

meet a tight schedule, the DB team pro-

posed to phase the project by constructing

the interstate portion, which had no utility

conflicts or right-of-way, first. While Phase

I was under construction, the DB team

worked with the department to get the

overpass bridge released for construction,

including the completion of all necessary

utility coordination and design activities.

One key aspect of the phasing plan was a

phased Erosion Sediment Pollution Con-

trol Plan (ESPCP) and Notice of Intent

(NOI)—a first for the department, requir-

ing close coordination with the depart-

ment and EPD. This practice is now

standard in the delivery of Design-Build

projects, allowing for schedule savings and

earlier open to traffic dates. This particu-

lar project was open to traffic nearly one

month prior to the contract completion

date.

The trophy name is:

moreland Altobelli Inc.

Team members: Moreland Altobelli As-

sociates Inc.: Will Sheehan, P.E - Project

Manager

E.R. Snell Contractor Inc.:

Kathy Stansell - Project Manager

Billy Franklin – Project Superintendent

GDOT - Loren Bartlett – Darryl VanMeter

CATEGORY 8

The I-75 Rocky Face interchange is located

near Dalton, Georgia. The existing inter-

change was designed as a partial clover-

leaf with a diamond configuration for

northbound I-75 movements to SR 3/US

41 and a loop ramp serving I-75 south-

bound movements. The original design is-

sues were long queues for the I-75

northbound to east SR 3 due to a short

ramp with insufficient storage and signifi-

cant accident history due to high speeds

entering the southbound loop ramp. The

original concept design called for a barrier

separated collector distributor for both

northbound and southbound I-75 to move

queuing traffic off of I-75 and reduce

speeds entering the southbound loop

ramp. A new loop ramp was proposed for

the northbound to west SR 3 movement

and the addition of a future lane to the

outside of both I-75 northbound and

southbound.

Early in the project design, the I-75

Bridge over SR 3 was found to be insuffi-

cient and the reconstruction of this bridge

was added to the project. This led to a

complicated phased construction that

maintained 75,000 VPD on I-75 and 40,000

VPD on SR 3. The team also performed a

Value Engineering Study that resulted in

the future lane along I-75 being moved

into the existing 44-foot median. This

eliminated stream impacts to 15 identified

state waters and wetlands and reduced

the linear stream impacts to below the

permit threshold. The I-bats survey was

completed ahead of the USFWS mandate

enabling the project to be constructed on

time.

The trophy name is:

Kimley-Horn & Associates

Team Members - Kimley-Horn:

Gary Newton,P.E. - Project Director

Peter Coakley, P.E. - Project Manager

David Stricklin, P.E. - Bridge Design Lead

GDOT - Peter Emmanuel -

Project Manager

14 GEORGIA EnGInEER

he first operating streetcar in Atlanta was on the West End line of the Atlanta Street Railroad company. George

W. Adair and Richard Peters acquired its charter in 1871, after the failure of its previous owners to lay a single rail

in the previous two years. The company ran a horse-drawn car on iron rails from Five Points to West End (near

where Spellman college now stands) within five months of taking over the company. The West End line coinci-

dentally passed in front of the two owners’ homes. Other lines were completed in 1872 – 1874. In 1874 the

Peachtree Street line was extended to what is now Ponce de Leon Avenue and then about a mile east to Ponce de

Leon Springs (site of the old Sears building and now being converted to a live-work-play development adjacent to the beltline).

unlike most other cases, the streetcar line came first, and Ponce de Leon Avenue followed along its alignment.

T

Atlanta Strtcars1874-1901

15DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

In 1889, Adair sold to Peters, who installed his son Edward C.Peters as General Superintendent. The company had 15 milesof main and leased lines, 50 cars, and 200 horses and mules.

The Atlanta Street Railway Company was certainly notthe only show in town; it was just the oldest. Between 1872and 1886, the Georgia General Assembly chartered five othercompanies, the city of Atlanta awarded them franchises, andthey actually built and operated streetcar lines. The AtlantaStreet Railroad Company acquired two of them in 1889.

An additional six companies were chartered and awardedoperating franchises between 1882 and 1888, but they neverlaid a single rail. Many newly minted street railway compa-nies were less about public transport and more about servingas vehicles for quick profit schemes. The 1880s and early1890s were a time of unfettered industrialization and capital-ism. There were corporate excesses throughout the U.S.:stock manipulation, colluding competitors, monopolies, po-litical bribery, and the absence of any state or federal regula-tory structure. It was not until the first of the 20th centurythat President Teddy Roosevelt began his ‘Trust Busting’ tobring under control the robber barons of the day.

In the midst of this business and political setting, two At-lantans stand out as the most influential leaders of the evolv-ing streetcar and electric power industries.

Joel Hurt arrived in Atlanta in 1875 as a 25-year old, Al-abama-born Civil Engineer with a degree from Franklin Col-lege in Athens, Georgia (now the University of Georgia).Hurt was an ambitious, hard-driving entrepreneur. He mar-ried Annie Woodruff of Columbus, before her brother, Ernest,became president of the Trust Company of Georgia bank, andbefore Ernest’s son, Robert became head of the Coca ColaCompany. Hurt developed Inman Park, Atlanta’s first sub-urb, and ran a streetcar to it in 1889 (the Atlanta and Edge-wood Street Railroad), which was the first electrified streetcarin Atlanta. The 3.25-mile system was one of the first electri-fied streetcars in America, and was considered the most fi-nancially and technically successful of them.

Hurt was the undisputed street railroad magnate of At-lanta for over ten years (1891 – 1901). Like many of his ilk,he was technically and managerially astute and created a verysuccessful business in a new industry, but was unloved bymany because they considered him obstinate and high-handed. He is given credit, however, for building the streetrailway to high technical standards, and his creation was saidto be the envy of many American cities of Atlanta’s size. Hewas highly regarded by his streetcar colleagues throughout theU.S. and served as president of the American Street RailwayAssociation in 1894.

On September 21, 1891, Hurt oversaw the merger of fivestreet railway lines into the Atlanta Consolidated Street Rail-way Company. A sixth line was added in 1892. Fares werefive cents. By 1894, Atlanta Consolidated had more than 54

miles of operational lines: 44 were electric, 9 had dummy en-gines,*and one (on Wheat Street) remained mule drawn. Theelectricity was largely supplied “by a huge dynamo which Hurtbuilt for exactly that purpose,” although some electricity camefrom the Georgia Electric Light Company, led by Henry M.Atkinson.

Henry M. Atkinson was born wealthy of a Boston patri-cian in 1862 and had a Harvard education. An uncle was anationally known political economist and strong supporter ofAtlanta’s 1881 International Cotton Exposition. He rodewith Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders in the Spanish Amer-ican War. At the urging of this uncle, the 26-year old Atkin-son moved to Atlanta in 1888. He soon married May Peters,daughter of Richard Peters, the engineer in charge of build-ing the Georgia Railroad from Augusta to Atlanta in the1840s. Peters owned hundreds of acres that now encompassmuch of Georgia Tech and extend East of Peachtree Street.

The Georgia Electric Light Company was chartered in1883 by three Atlanta businessmen (including Edward C. Pe-ters). It obtained a modest contract with the city to providewhat amounted to experimental electric street lighting. Atthe time, the city was a major stockholder in the Atlanta GasLight Company, and it approached the transition from gasto electric lighting cautiously. In 1891, the company’s origi-nal Atlanta investors sold to a group led by Atkinson thathad access to Northern money from financial companies andelectrical equipment suppliers. In 1891, he also became the

1874 - Streetcar over Clear Creek, near Ponce de Leon

and Argonne Avenue

16 GEORGIA EnGInEER

*Smaller version of a railroad locomotive that was much disliked because it belched smoke and was noisy.**MARTA has 48.1 miles of heavy rail and the Atlanta Streetcar has 2.9 miles of light rail.

NOTE: The source of most of this material is Mules to MARTA, Volume I, Jean Martin, 1975, and quotations are from it. At-lanta’s experience follows closely nationwide trends during this time as described in Mass Motorization + Mass Transit, David W.Jones, 2008.

President (and founder) of Southern Banking and Trust Companyand was the leader of the Atlanta, West End, and McPherson Bar-racks Railway. The streetcar company’s name was soon changed tothe Atlanta Traction Company, which increased trackage from fivemiles in 1891 to 25 miles in 1894.

Atkinson and Hurt were both of the business and social elitein Atlanta. They had common friends and surely saw each otherfrequently in an Atlanta with a population of 37,400 in 1880 and65,500 in 1890. By the mid 1890s, the two men were on a colli-sion course for control of the street railway and electric power sys-tems. The collision became known as the ‘Second Battle of Atlanta’in both local and national newspapers.

At the end of 1891, Joel Hurt was president of a street railwaycompany with electric generation capacity to power most of itsstreetcars, and Henry Atkinson was president of an electric lightcompany and held interests in a street railway company.

Georgia law stipulated that a street railway could “own andoperate power plants for commercial purposes beyond their ownneeds while electric light companies were barred from the opera-tion of streetcar lines.” In brief Hurt was a streetcar operator whoneeded electric power, and Atkinson was an electric power opera-tor who ran streetcars as a competitive tactic.

By the mid-1890s, Hurt had done much damage to his rep-utation and relationship with city hall and his customers. Two in-cidents serve as examples. One of Atlanta’s largest and mostsuccessful civic endeavors was the 1895 Cotton States and Inter-national Exposition. Hurt built a special streetcar line to delivervisitors to the exposition site (now Piedmont Park). Instead ofthe standard five-cent fare, he charged ten cents. It was consideredprice gouging and outraged the public and especially Atlanta eliteswho had worked tirelessly and generously to make the event reflectfavorably on their beloved city. Hurt’s name was conspicuouslyomitted from the lists of committee members in the expositioncatalogue. Henry Atkinson was listed as chief of the ‘electricity de-partment’ and a member of the finance committee, which waschaired by Samuel M. Inman, a close friend of Hurt and for whomhe named Inman Park.

In streets where rails existed, the city required streetcar com-panies to share in the cost of paving them. Hurt reasoned that byremoving the rails, the street paving costs could be avoided, re-gardless of the inconvenience to customers. In 1896, Hurt orderedthe removal of tracks from Capitol Avenue in the middle of thenight to avoid what he considered unfair paving requirements. Atthe time, Capitol Avenue was a very desirable address. Police werecalled to Capitol Avenue, and they ordered the crew to stop work.After the police left, however, Hurt ordered the crew to continue!

Work was finally stopped when the police returned and confis-cated the workers’ tools.

By 1897, Hurt’s Atlanta Consolidated Street Railroad Com-pany operated ten routes with 60 miles of rail, which extended be-yond the city and into adjacent counties. Three competingcompanies operated lines with combined trackage of 36 miles,making a total streetcar trackage of at least 102 miles.

In 1899, Atkinson and Hurt held secret talks on combiningtheir operations, but they led nowhere. They even flipped a cointo determine who should buy out the other, but their relationshipremained rocky. Atkinson sought city approval of new streetcarfranchises that would compete directly with Hurt. Hurt changedthe name of his Atlanta Consolidated Street Railroad to the At-lanta Railway and Power Company and announced its plans for an‘up-to-date power plant in central Atlanta,’ including steam heat-ing and air-cooling facilities.

Hurt and Atkinson seemed bent on encroaching on the cen-tral business interest of the other. By 1899, the Hurt-Atkinsonrivalry played out publically in courts, newspapers, city hall, andnorthern financial centers.

An 1899 report by Ford, Bacon & Davis, ‘consulting streetrailway engineers and experts with offices in New York, Philadel-phia and New Orleans,’ assessed Atlanta’s transit system in supportof Atkinson’s petition to the city for new franchises. The AtlantaConsolidated Street Railroad Company had 93.4 miles of singletrack equivalent (composed of 14.3 miles of double track and 79.1miles of single track). Most lines had 15-minute headways, someas low as five minutes and some as high as 30 minutes. In NewYork, some downtown streetcars had 15-second headways, and inNew Orleans on Canal Street headways were as low as 30 seconds.Atkinson hired the firm to assess Hurt’s operation, so it was nosurprise that they concluded, “ . . . the present service is little shortof ridiculous.”

The Second Battle of Atlanta continued unabated until 1901when Hurt finally agreed to sell his streetcar and power intereststo Atkinson. The successor company that emerged from the com-bination was the Georgia Railway and Electric Company in 1902.It included the streetcar (with 138 miles of track**), electric light,steam, and (later) gas light companies. The complete monopolyof public utilities in Atlanta was finally achieved (except the city-owned waterworks). This structure remained until the 1940swhen the federal Security and Exchange Commission orderedGeorgia Power Company to divest itself of gas and transportationinterests. v

The first part of this article left off discussingO & M procedures and guidelines among GIpractices by organizing them into major main-tenance areas or functions that will apply tomost GI system types. Part 2 of the article willcontinue that discussion briefly and finish bydiscussing economic factors such as estimatedO & M costs, including financing strategieswhich support the funding of O & M programsfor GI.

Typical Operations & maintenance

Recommendations for various GI

Technologies, continued…

Inlet & Outlet Control Device MaintenanceInlet and outlet control devices generally

require routine inspection and cleaning.

However, their maintenance procedures

should be familiar to most maintenance

staff responsible for traditional stormwa-

ter systems. Typically, these structures

should be inspected at least two times per

year and in some cases following major

storm events. They should be periodically

cleaned to remove sediment, trash, and

other debris, particularly when they in-

clude sumps or inserts for pretreatment of

runoff. Maintenance of inlet and outlet

strucutres helps to prevent flow restric-

tions and can be combined with system-

wide inspections or with routine street

inlet maintenance that may already be a

standard part of community maintenance

programs.

vegetation

Vegetation maintenance can vary consid-

erably among different GI practices and is

highly dependent on system visibility and

planting palette. Typically, planting sys-

tems located in highly visible urban and

park environments and those with com-

plex planting palettes will be more main-

tenance-intensive than those that are

designed to function as ‘naturalized’ sys-

tems in less traveled areas. Typical routine

maintenance activities for vegetated sys-

tems include: inspection/observations and

trash removal, annual mulching/pruning in

more visible or intensively planted sys-

tems, routine weeding during the growing

season and especially during the estab-

lishment period, and plant replacement

and irrigation during drought periods.

Permeable Pavements and Pavers

Permeable pavement maintenance is criti-

cal for ensuring the long term porosity of

the pavement surface and varies depend-

ing on the type of surface material in-

stalled. Routine maintenance for

permeable asphalt and concrete primarily

requires that the pavement surface be

vacuum swept biannually at a minimum,

although more frequent vacuuming may

be required when there is high exposure

to debris, sediment, or leaf litter. Perme-

able pavers should be vacuumed less often

to remove debris accumulations without

impacting gravel joints typical of most

paver varieties.

cold Weather considerations

Cold weather and associated deicing ac-

tivities such as plowing and application of

deicers (e.g. salts), must be considered

during the design phase in order to help

mitigate or altogether prevent these ac-

tivities from reducing the long term per-

formance of GI systems. Often, vegetated

GI systems are located adjacent to road-

ways and parking areas and are used as

stockpile areas for plowed snow and as a

result can receive particularly heavy salt

loadings. Thoughtful design decisions,

such as establishing alternative, desig-

nated stockpile areas, can help alleviate

such cold weather-related concerns. In-

deed, such careful design practices, as well

as proper plant species selection, has

yielded successful GI implementations in

various northwest climates exposed to

consistently heavy snowfall. On the oper-

ations side, maintenance staff are encour-

aged to consider changes to their typical

cold weather protocols, such as using

more environmentally benign deicers and

adjusting plow blade heights on perme-

able pavements, in order to minimize neg-

ative impacts on GI systems.

Operations & maintenance Tasks

and Frequencies

Many O&M tasks, such as structure in-

spection and cleaning, are common across

the spectrum of GI technologies. However,

as one might suspect, some tasks are very

specific to the type of GI system being

17DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

MAINTAINING FOR SUCCESS:considerations for green infrastructure operations & maintenance | part two

By Daniel Wible, PE | Water Resources Engineer | CH2M HILL &Susan McDaniels, LEED AP | Water Resources Engineer | CH2M HILL

Street inlets connected to GI systems aremaintained using familiar tools such as

vacuum trucks that are already employed forstandard inlet cleaning.

18 GEORGIA EnGInEER

maintained. In most cases, the frequency

of scheduled routine maintenance tasks,

such as structure inspection and cleaning,

is one to two times per year. Most main-

tenance activities and frequencies will also

vary seasonally, particularly for vegetated

surface systems, which typically require

more frequent care during the growing

season. Table 1 summarizes the recom-

mended O&M tasks and frequencies for

seven common GI practices and/or com-

ponents.

Paying for GI Operation and maintenance

One of the biggest barriers to GI is the per-

ceived long term cost of implementing a

GI maintenance program. However, there

are various examples of large-scale GI pro-

grams where maintenance has been suc-

cessfully undertaken on a large variety of

GI types and projects, and where the busi-

ness case for such implementation has

been proven beneficial.

One such example is in Onondaga

County, New York, where implementation

of an ambitious GI program (‘Save the

Rain’) has also meant rapid deployment of

an equally ambitious GI maintenance pro-

gram. To date, the Save the Rain program

has successfully implemented approxi-

mately 170 GI projects in streets, parks,

schools, libraries, parking lots, and nu-

merous other settings. The program has

employed a wide variety of GI technolo-

gies, including bioretention, green roofs,

and permeable pavements, at varying

scales, in order to reduce stormwater

runoff inflows to combined sewers by over

100 million gallons annually. Onondaga

County’s maintenance program has been

funded through a combination of strate-

gies, including: integration of GI mainte-

nance into the existing infrastructure

maintenance regime and CMMS tracking

system, utilization of large-scale mainte-

nance contracts which create jobs and

healthy market competition, community

partnerships to provide low-cost mainte-

nance while providing entry-level jobs and

job training, and establishment of incen-

tive programs to offset costs through pri-

vate implementation of GI and its

associated maintenance. Since 2010,

Onondaga County’s GI program has been

both an environmental and political suc-

cess story due in large part to its effective

maintenance efforts. For more informa-

tion on this program, please

visit:savetherain.us/greenprograms/green

infrastructure/maintenance/.

The business case for GI maintenance

becomes most apparent when looking at

the incremental costs of GI maintenance

activities compared to those associated

with conventional infrastructure or land-

scape maintenance. In addition, when one

considers the multiple benefits of GI over

conventional stormwater management,

the business case for GI appears even

more favorable. For example, the ancillary

benefits of GI, such as increased property

values, economic stimulus through the

creation of new permanent jobs, commu-

nity enhancement through increased

green space, and water quality and other

environmental benefits, far outweigh the

benefits of traditional stormwater man-

agement. As discussed below, there are

various ways to pay for the costs associ-

ated with GI maintenance, including com-

munity partnerships, novel financing

opportunities, and implementation of

stormwater utilities.

Funding mechanisms

Funding mechanisms for stormwater man-

agement, whether conventional or GI, and

its associated maintenance continue to be

a challenge for many communities, espe-

cially when competition for such funding

is stacked against budgets for schools, li-

braries, and police departments. While

bonds can be used to fund stormwater

maintenance, this funding must be repaid

over time and as such it can contribute to

the community’s overall tax burden. In

order to compensate for these challenges

and to provide an equitable method of

stormwater cost distribution that is linked

to impact, many communities are imple-

menting stormwater utility fees. Stormwa-

ter utilities can provide dedicated funding

for the long term maintenance of

stormwater systems and in effect ensure

the long term performance of GI and other

stormwater systems. They also pair well

with crediting programs that can be used

to incentivize private investment in GI and

its maintenance.

Other alternative funding mecha-

nisms include innovative financing options

such as public-private partnerships (PPPs),

Table 1 - Routine and non-Routine maintenance Tasks and Frequencies

19DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

beneficiary opportunity funds, infrastruc-

ture improvement districts, and clean

water funds. Partnerships with community

groups, such as youth work training pro-

grams, can provide economic benefits to

the community by providing long term and

permanent jobs.

Factors Influencing maintenance costs

The factors influencing maintenance costs

are often based on the type of GI technol-

ogy, with vegetated systems, such as curb

extensions or planters, typically having

higher maintenance costs than non-vege-

tated systems. That being said, mainte-

nance costs among similar GI technologies

are largely based on system size, design

complexity, location, and public visibility.

More frequent and intense maintenance

requirements obviously lead to increases

in cost. For example, maintenance cost

will be higher for a system of permeable

pavers and stormwater planters in an

urban plaza verses permeable asphalt with

bioswales in a community parking lot.

While both have similar systems and traf-

fic uses associated with them, the urban

plaza will likely require more frequent

maintenance since it is more heavily used

by pedestrians that spend longer amounts

of time in the space, increasing the sys-

tem’s visibility and required maintenance.

Although more complex and visible GI sys-

tems require more maintenance, they are

often systems that become community as-

sets and maintenance costs can be incor-

porated into maintenance budgets which

already exist.

Other factors that may influence GI

maintenance costs relate to the policy and

political factors associated with a particu-

lar GI program. In a larger program, where

This award winning GI project in Lancaster, PA provides traffic calming and increases

pedestrian safety at a busy intersection while creating an outdoor seating area for

the adjacent restaurant. The restaurant’s owner partnered with the city and is par-

tially responsible for the maintenance of the new GI systems.

20 GEORGIA EnGInEER

larger scale maintenance contracts can be

implemented (for permeable pavements,

for example), there are economies of scale

that may help reduce costs. In a commu-

nity where there is wide public support

and the ability to partner with local com-

munity institutions and organizations such

as schools, park preservation groups, or

environmental organizations, there may

be an opportunity to offset costs through

the use of low-cost or volunteer labor.

Although the concept of conducting

and paying for the maintenance of nu-

merous new GI systems can be daunting, it

is important to note that many of the

maintenance activities associated with GI

systems are already conducted as part of

conventional maintenance programs. For

example, regular clean up, weeding, irri-

gation, mulching, and pruning is already a

part of most urban landscape mainte-

nance programs in public and private

spaces. Street sweeping programs are

widely used in the regular maintenance

regime of standard pavements in many

communities and could be expanded to in-

clude permeable systems. Mowing lawns

in and around detention basins and other

conventional stormwater systems and

inlet/outlet structure cleaning is already

being performed by city maintenance

crews and private property management

groups. The fact is that the maintenance

associated with many ‘naturalized’ GI sys-

tems (e.g. infiltration basins or bioreten-

tion in a meadow or wooded area) and

other landscape restoration practices can

be relatively easily integrated into existing

maintenance programs and in some cases

can even reduce existing maintenance ac-

tivities and costs. Examples include a re-

duced need for mowing and fertilization

due to conversions from lawn to native

landscapes or a reduction in the need for

deicers as permeable pavements some-

times experience less surface icing.

Typical GI maintenance costs

Comprehensive data on the potential

maintenance costs associated with GI is

fairly limited but has been documented by

some, including the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency, the Center for Watershed

Protection, and the Water Environment

Research Foundation (WERF), which de-

veloped an LID cost tool in 2009. Review

of that information reveals a relatively

high level of cost variability due to the fact

that GI maintenance costs can and will dif-

fer based on the numerous factors de-

scribed above. A survey of communities

that are implementing GI programs

throughout the United States indicates

that annual O&M budgets for these pro-

grams can range from approximately

$250,000 to over $1 Million. Budgets are

directly dependent upon the number of in-

stalled facilities, the age of the program,

and the number of additional facilities

planned.

The following chart (Figure 1) of an-

nual maintenance cost ranges for GI proj-

ects implemented by the City of Lancaster,

PA clearly illustrates the variability in

maintenance costs for common GI tech-

nologies. The costs (2014 dollars) are

based on both ‘low’ and ‘high’ routine

maintenance regimes for these GI tech-

nologies and their associated labor and

material replacement costs. Low and high

routine maintenance costs are a function

of the assumed complexity of the GI sys-

tem and exemplify the range of costs that

could be associated with a particular GI

practice. The chart shows that on average,

vegetated systems such as bioretention

and tree trenches have higher annual

maintenance costs per square foot than

non-vegetated and subsurface systems

such as infiltration trenches or permeable

pavements. The obvious conclusion is that

less visibility often translates into reduced

costs, at least when comparing costs on

the basis of dollars per unit area of GI.

However, as illustrated in Figure 2,

when typical O&M costs are applied to

typical maximum impervious drainage

areas for the same GI technologies, the re-

sults change. Suddenly, seemingly less

cost-effective technologies, from an O&M

standpoint, like bioretention, appear more

cost-effective since they can accept runoff

from more impervious area per square

foot of system area than, say, permeable

pavements. Indeed, Figure 2 reveals that

bioretention and tree trenches, which are

typically more resilient to rapid clogging,

are just as cost-effective to maintain on an

area managed basis as most subsurface

systems and are almost two times less ex-

pensive than green roofs. Green roofs,

which are typically limited to managing di-

rect rainfall and potentially some adjacent

roof areas, are shown to have higher

maintenance costs per acre of managed

area than all other systems. Such insights

can help program managers evaluate the

cost effectiveness of various GI technolo-

gies in the long term; in other words, they

can help determine which systems can be

deployed to maximize runoff capture

while reducing both capital and long term

O&M costs.

Comparing the costs of GI O&M with

conventional drainage practices or land-

scape improvements has generally proven

problematic due to both the lack of data

and the inherent challenge of an equitable

Figure 1 – Typical Annual maintenance cost Range for GI (cost per SF of GI area)

21DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

comparison (i.e. comparing ‘apples to ap-

ples’). For example, in order to under-

stand the O&M cost ‘delta’ associated

with maintaining bioretention, the ques-

tion of what does the bioretention replace

must be answered. Does the bioretention

replace turf grass? Or densely vegetated

public gardens? Or pavement? And how

‘complex’ will the bioretention design be?

Is the project a retrofit or is it required to

achieve regulatory compliance for

stormwater management?

In 2007, an EPA-funded modeling

study on the benefits of trees and green

roofs in Washington, D.C. concluded that

annual savings of $1.4 to $5.1 million in

grey infrastructure maintenance costs

could be realized depending on the level

of GI implemented. Similarly, in its 2013

report, “Staying Green: Strategies to Im-

prove Operations and Maintenance of

Green Infrastructure in the Chesapeake

Bay Watershed,” American Rivers pre-

sented several case studies comparing

green and grey infrastructure O&M costs.

The report ultimately concluded that

“maintenance for properly designed and

appropriately selected GI practices can be

less costly than conventional stormwater

infrastructure,” but that “more research is

needed.” Furthermore, “better tracking of

maintenance costs for GI combined with

increased research will provide a strong

foundation for local governments to make

informed choices about their options for

cost-effective stormwater management.”

conclusions

Beyond the obvious environmental bene-

fits, GI is capable of improving communi-

ties, benefitting economies, educating the

public, and creating more resilient places

for people to live and work. However,

when politicians or community leaders or

even the design community sells the idea

of GI implementation to their respective

communities, they must also sell the idea

of maintaining that GI, of keeping the

green. In other words, selling GI imple-

mentation is the same as selling 20 or 30

or 40 years of dedicated, effective, and

consistent O&M. Without such a ‘sale’ to

the public and to stakeholders, successful

GI implementation is impossible. Fortu-

nately, as described above, there are nu-

merous tools, strategies, and lessons

learned from other communities available

to help decision-makers overcome their

‘GI anxiety’ and implement successful pro-

grams. In general, the 10 most important

considerations for successfully maintain-

ing GI systems are as follows:

1. Commit to implement and maintain GI

2. Identify funding sources for GI imple-

mentation and O&M

3. Gain community endorsement

4. Plan and design GI projects for minimal

and/or effective maintenance

5. Develop GI standard operating proce-

dures, inspection forms, and related

documentation

6. Identify responsible agents for various

O&M practices

Figure 2 – Typical Annual maintenance cost Range for GI (cost per SF of

impervious area managed) ReferencesThe Green Build-out Model: Quantifying theStormwater Management Benefits of Trees andGreen Roofs in Washington, DC, Casey Trees andLimnoTech, 2007.

The Importance of Operation and Maintenance forthe Long-Term Success of Green Infrastructure, USEPA. 2013. http://water.epa.gov/grants_fund-ing/cwsrf/upload/Green-Infrastructure-OM-Re-port.pdf

Kinter, Mark. Maintenance and Restoration ofPorous Pavement Surfaces White Paper. ElginSweeper Company.

NC State University Cooperative Extension BMP In-spection & Maintenance Certification.http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/topic/bmpim/overview.html

Staying Green: Strategies to Improve Operationsand Maintenance of Green Infrastructure in theChesapeake Bay Watershed, American Rivers.2013.

Staying Green and Growing Jobs: Green Infrastruc-ture Operations and Maintenance as Career Path-way Stepping Stones, American Rivers. 2013.

Stormwater BMP Maintenance. ChesapeakeStormwater Network. http://chesapeakestormwa-ter.net/training-library/design-adaptations/stormwater-bmp-maintenance/

Users Guide to the BMP and LID Whole Life CostModels, Version 2.0. Water Environment ResearchFoundation. 2009.

7. Conduct ‘gap’ analysis of O&M re-

quirements (i.e. what you are doing

now and what needs to change)

8. Educate and train maintenance staff

9. Construct GI projects according to best

erosion and sediment control practices

10.Monitor and track effectiveness of

O&M efforts over time

At the most basic level, both big and small

communities interested in such success

should consider what they are already

doing for maintenance and then deter-

mine how to most effectively bridge the

gap to full-scale GI maintenance. v

22 GEORGIA EnGInEER

he 1972 Clean Water Act wasan important step toward ad-dressing many of the waterquality issues in the UnitedStates. Focused primarily onpoint source discharges, itmade great strides in cleaning

up waterways that were historically theprimary source of water pollution. In1987, Congress passed amendments tothe Clean Water Act that provided addi-tional regulatory controls over nonpointsource pollution, focusing primarily onstormwater runoff. With these amend-ments came new regulations, affectingmany Georgia municipalities. In 1990,regulations addressing stormwater runofffrom large municipal areas (populationover 100,000 people) (Phase I) were im-plemented, and in 1999, regulations wereexpanded to smaller municipalities(Phase II) . These regulations necessi-tated new tools to facilitate complianceamong local governments. In response,the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)secured funding from the Georgia Envi-ronmental Protection Division (GAEPD) in1998 to coordinate the development of astormwater management guidance tool.In 2001, the first Georgia StormwaterManagement Manual (GSMM) was com-pleted. Consisting of two volumes, theGSMM was one of the first statewide

stormwater manuals in the country.

Volume 1 (the Policy Guidebook) was

intended to provide baseline knowledge of

stormwater management to local govern-

ments attempting to setup stormwater

programs. It was also intended to provide

a degree of consistency between each

local government with a stormwater per-

mit. Volume 1 contains general informa-

tion on stormwater issues, regulatory

requirements, stormwater planning, and

implementing operations and mainte-

nance programs. Volume 2 (the Technical

Handbook) was, and is, the heart of the

GSMM. Containing all the engineering in-

formation for designing and building

stormwater best management practices

(BMPs), Volume 2 focuses on reducing

total suspended solids (TSS) by 80 percent

from up to the first 1.2” of any given storm

event. This approach reflected the rules

and permit language at the time by focus-

ing on stormwater quality as opposed to

the current focus on stormwater quantity.

Volume 2 also contains extensive in-formation on drainage design as well assupporting information on topics like soilsand rainfall curves.

In 2009, the Coastal StormwaterSupplement (CSS) was developed in re-sponse to the unique conditions withinGeorgia’s coastal area. This addition tothe GSMM marked a shift in stormwatermanagement in Georgia by focusing oninfiltration of stormwater as the primarygoal with 80 percent TSS reduction beingthe fall back where infiltration is not pos-

sible. This is also the first manual in Geor-gia that discussed and referred to the nowubiquitous term of green infrastructure(GI). It is interesting to note that severalof the BMPs in Volume 2 of the GSMMare the same BMPs that are now regardedas GI, such as vegetated swales and per-vious paving. The CSS also emphasizedconserving as much undisturbed area onsite as possible to better mimic pre-de-velopment hydrology.

Volume 3 is the most recent additionto the GSMM. Completed in 2012, Vol-ume 3 serves as the ‘Good HousekeepingGuide.’ It contains helpful practices toprevent potential stormwater pollution.Practices cover a range of topics such asvehicle washes, hazardous chemicals, tooland equipment cleaning, and outdoormanufacturing operations. Volume 3 wasaimed at not only municipal stormwaterpermit holders, but also construction andindustrial permit holders. Given the rela-tive newness and focus of Volume 3, it willnot be addressed in the update process.

Georgia’s stormwater management manual: helping to protect water quality in Georgia

TBy Chris Faulkner | Senior Planner | Atlanta Regional Commission

An example of green infrastructure at Rock Mill Park, Alpharetta, Georgia

23DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

GSmm version 2.0

The original GSMM was an innovativetool for managing stormwater. It has beenvaluable for engineers, designers, land-scape architects, and many other practi-tioners from all sectors. However, likemost nearly 15-year-old tools, it is in needof an update. Slated for completion in thefall of 2015, GSMM 2.0 (as we are callingit for now) will provide necessary updatesto Georgia’s primary stormwater man-agement tool.

First and foremost, GSMM 2.0 willnot be a rigid, prescriptive document.Flexibility will be a key feature of the up-dated manual to provide maximum us-ability for anyone who managesstormwater. This will be achieved largelythrough an integrated approach, meaningBMPs will be able to address either the 80percent TSS approach or the infiltra-tion/volume approach. An integrated ap-proach recognizes that different localgovernments and other users have differ-ent needs in terms of stormwater man-agement. Having an integrated approachwill also allow for users to adapt their ap-proach to stormwater management overtime without the need for a different man-ual. GSMM 2.0 will also include completeupdates to Volume 1 and Volume 2.

Revision of Volume 1 will includelooking at and updating existing sections,removing sections no longer needed, andadding sections that provide more infor-mation to local decision makers and otherusers. Some of the key features of thenew Volume 1 will be:• High level cost / benefit analysis of

stormwater management;• Case studies of stormwater manage-

ment;• More discussion on financing op-

tions; and• Improved information on operations

and maintenanceIt is expected that putting this kind of in-formation into the hands of decision mak-ers and other stakeholders will result inmore informed decisions regardingstormwater management.

Updates to Volume 2 will include re-viewing existing BMPs in both the existing

Volume 2 and the CSS to determine whichare still relevant and what specific infor-mation requirements each has. In doingthis, the project team will not be adding anabundance of new material, but will in-stead focus on providing information oneach BMP that is useful and has beenproven effective. Updates will also incor-porate the previously mentioned inte-grated approach to each BMP. Examplesof additional information for inclusion are:• Regional considerations / geographic

appropriateness;• Improved soils information;• New development versus redevelop-

ment considerations;• Treatment trains; and• Special requirements for use

The updated Volume 2 will also incorpo-rate GI; however, GSMM 2.0 will not justbe a GI manual. Again, in an effort to pro-vide maximum flexibility, GSMM 2.0 willalso include many of the traditional BMPsusers are familiar with. This will help in-crease the usability and flexibility of themanual.

While the updated GSMM 2.0 willnot be able to address all situations andconditions, it is expected to build upon thesuccess of the original GSMM and en-hance Georgia’s primary tool for

stormwater management. A great teamhas been assembled to ensure the abovestatement comes to fruition. The projectteam, being managed by ARC, consists of:• URS Corporation (Lead Firm);• Center for Watershed Protection;• Hussey, Gay, Bell, & DeYoung;• Center Forward; and• Mendel Designs

In addition to the consultant team, a Tech-nical Advisory Group (TAG) has beenformed to provide user input and feed-back. The TAG consists of representativesfrom local governments of different sizeswithin Georgia, state and federal govern-ment officials, industry groups, and non-profits. To ensure maximum feedback,there will also be two larger stakeholderreview periods to collect comments froman even wider range of users.

Overall, this project promises to pro-vide Georgia with an enhanced stormwa-ter management tool that will ensure thatwe, as a state, continue to be at the fore-front of managing our stormwater. Byproviding flexibility, enhanced informa-tion, and innovation, we hope users willfind GSMM 2.0 to be an effective tool forbetter managing stormwater state-wide.v

Gainesville installed an infiltration trench to address stormwater runoff from a road

adjacent to their stream restoration of Flat Creek, a tributary to Lake Lanier.

24 GEORGIA EnGInEER

ake inventory of your suc-

cesses. What comes to mind?

The title of your position in

your company? How much

money you make? The value

of your home? An award you

won? If you had to measure

your success, would you place yourself in

the top ten percent? Top five percent?

Did your company or your team meet this

quarter’s sales goals? Regardless of which

success percentile you stand in, does the

nagging sensation that something isn’t

quite right tug at you? you’re not alone.

A recent Harris poll shows a downwardtrend in happiness in America. Onlythirty-five percent of Americans saythey’re happy—two percent fewer thanfive years ago. A Gallup poll taken last yearshows only thirteen percent of employeesin the world feel engaged and invested intheir jobs.

Abraham Lincoln had a keen insightinto happiness. He said, “I reckon mostpeople are about as happy as they make uptheir minds to be.” The same can be saidof success.

Ruth McClain, a talented seamstresswho grew up an orphan in Philadelphia,used to lose track of time standing at themetal racks in fabric stores that heldwooden yardsticks. To the casual observer,they all looked the same. Not to Ruth Mc-Clain. She examined them, observing acurve in one, a bow in another, a nick inanother.

Asked about her fixation with theyardsticks, she explained once, “If youmeasure garments with a crooked yardstick,the garment will look right when you fin-ish making it. It will come out the rightsize, but the person who wears it will feellike something isn’t quite right. They won’tknow what it is, but they’ll feel it. Whenyou measure with a crooked yardstick thefinished product never feels quite right.”

Goals and benchmarks others set forus create a similar effect as measuring gar-ments with a crooked yardstick, because,even if you hit the benchmarks, somethingstill won’t feel quite right. Eventually, likerunning into the wind, that feeling will fa-tigue you, overwhelm you—burn you out.

Sales goals, income levels, and posses-sions never fully satisfy us when someoneelse sets them as a standard of success.Who said you had to become a multi-mil-lionaire, or that your company had to growby seven percent a year? That the unem-ployment rate had to go down? If it wasn’tyou, then stop using those data points as

measurements! They’re crooked yardsticks.Sure, they reflect something, but they maynot reflect what matters to you.

Here are four questions that will helpstraighten out your yardstick:

1. Who are you?

Not just your name or your logo butyour essence. What are the essentialthings you want people to rememberabout you or your organization longafter you’re gone? What do you standfor? What really matters? What makesyou feel special and fulfilled?

2. Where are you, and how long have

you been there?

That’s your present and your past.Know it and honor it. Make peacewith it. Now stop letting it limit you.It’s just your starting point for the fu-ture. To get accurate directions youneed to know a starting point and anending point. Your starting point does-n’t define you.

T

By Gerry Sandusky

The crooked yardstick - redefining success

3. Where are you going?

A lot of people and organizations can’tanswer this. Stop until you can. If youdon’t know where you want to go, howwill you know if you’re on course or offcourse? You won’t. Instead, you’ll fallfor the trap of using goals and meas-urements set by other people to defineyour success.

Imagine outcomes that feel true,authentic, that feel like wearing a per-fect fitting jacket while you walkthrough the woods on a chilly, fall af-ternoon. There’s no one else around tosee you in that jacket. Just you. Does itfeel tailored for your body, warm, justenough to keep you comfortable withyour hands tucked into the pockets butnot too much to bog you down?Someone made that jacket using astraight yardstick! That’s what successfeels like. It can look like a thousanddifferent things. That’s your choice.But make sure your vision of it feelsright.

4. How will you get there?

Probably the same way Ruth McClaindid: measuring everything with astraight yardstick. You will remain theproduct of a crooked yardstick untilyou have the courage to define successon your terms and measure it only byyour terms. No matter how goodeverything looks, it won’t feel quiteright, and achieving more won’tchange that.

Answer those questions honestlyat an individual level and you will quietthe noise caused by exterior expecta-tions or crooked yardsticks. Answerthem at a company or organizationlevel and you will unleash purpose andcommitment beyond anything youhave experienced before because theseanswers come from a place deeperthan the bottom line.

Ruth McClain had fewer thanfive hundred dollars in her checkingaccount when she died at the youngage of fifty-eight, but she died happyand she died fulfilled. She died know-ing she had given the world somethingthe world didn’t give her: the gift of amother. She raised a good family, lovedher husband and five children. Shedied knowing the shirts and blouses,the dresses and the drapes she madebrought beauty and joy to the lives ofothers. And she died knowing her life,like those garments, was measuredusing a yardstick she carefully selected.By many measurements—income, as-

sets, fame, power—Ruth McClain’slife may not look like much of a suc-cess, but by her measurement it was astrue as a perfect yardstick; a yardstickI keep to this day to remind me ofher—my mom—a genuinely happy,successful person.

Choose your yardstick carefully. Your suc-cess and happiness depend on it. v

Gerry Sandusky is the play-by-play voice of the Baltimore Ravens, and a speaker, corporate trainer, and author of The New York

Times bestseller, Forgotten Sundays. He is the recipient of two regional Edward R. Murrow and Emmy Awards for his accom-

plishments in broadcast journalism. Gerry’s energetic and insightful presentations will impart the value of effective leadership

techniques and communication on your audience. For more information on Gerry, please visit www.GerrySandusky.com.

25DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

ach year the Intelligent Trans-

portation Society of Georgia

recognizes people and projects

that exemplify the highest level

of achievement in intelligent

transportation. In 2014, two

projects and two people were

singled out for their innovation and achieve-

ments.

Project of Significance Award - A project,study, or program undertaken in the previ-ous twelve (12) months with an impactthat is quantifiable and directly related to aspecific activity/action that reduces con-gestion, improves safety and security, andenhances mobility in Georgia.

Winner: – I-75 South Express Lanes Proj-ect - Georgia Department of Transporta-tion and State Road and TollwayAuthority. Contractor: C W Matthews,Designer: ARCADIS.

I-75 Express Lane Project will add op-tional reversible tolled lanes for 12 milesalong I-75 south of Atlanta, in Henry andClayton Counties from SR 155 to SR 138.Access to the reversible lanes system willbe facilitated by an automated gate system.

Traffic in both express lanes and generalpurpose lanes will be monitored by ex-panded Georgia Department of Trans-portation’s NaviGator ITS System. Thelanes will be managed by a variable pricedtolling system, and drivers will use a PeachPass to access the lanes.

The benefit: The I-75 Express lanes willprovide motorists in the corridor with ex-panded choice and a valuable option for areliable trip regardless of traffic conditionsin the general purpose lanes. The I-75 Ex-press lanes are anticipated to provide an av-erage of ten minutes in travel time savingsfor users.

The Significance: This project is the firstsuch project implemented under the stateof Georgia’s policy that any new capacityon Metro Atlanta’s freeway system will bemanaged. The full electronic tolling featureof the project provides a means to maintainoptimal usage and reliable travel time, andtherefore, better mobility and accessibilityin the corridor. This express lane system isalso the first reversible lanes system inGeorgia that utilizes automated gates andassociated changeable message signs, toll

rate signs, and traffic signals to manage theoperations. Innovation: Outside the Box Award –Creative and unique approach or solutionby an individual or group to an ITS chal-lenge, or to an issue using ITS as a solutionduring the previous twelve (12) months.Winner: Variable Speed Limits on I-285 -- Georgia Department of Transportation.Contractor: Brooks-Berry-Haynie, De-signer: ATKINS, Software: Delcan, Main-tenance Support: Serco.

The Georgia DOT continues to look forinnovative technologies to deal with theever-increasing traffic on metro Atlantafreeways. A concept proposed by Com-missioner Keith Golden has allowed for anincreased speed limit on I-285 south of I-20 and implementation of a Variable SpeedLimit (VSL) system on I-285 north of I-20. During times of lighter traffic, thisVSL system will allow drivers on this seg-ment of I-285 to enjoy the same 65 mphspeed limit that drivers south of I-20 have.However, during times of increasing con-gestion, the VSL system will display re-duced speed limits in ten-mph increments(to a minimum of 35 mph) to slow traffic

26 GEORGIA EnGInEER

2014 Intelligent Transportation Society ofGeorgia’s Best of ITS Award Winners

E

Ashlyn Morgan, Whitley Nottage, Bill Gunter and Mark Demidovich receive the 2014

Innovation award from ITS Georgia President Tom Sever (second from right).

ITS President Tom Sever (right) congratu-

lates David Smith winner of the Out-

standing Volunteer Award.

as it enters a congested area.This VSL system was deployed as a

design-build project; the design-build teamwas led by Brooks-Berry-Haynie withAtkins as the designer. It features a com-bination of wireline and wireless commu-nications to the 176 VSLs, most of whichare solar powered. The VSL are controlledby GDOT’s Navigator II system from theTMC in Grant Park.

Larry R. Dreihaup Award – The ITS Geor-gia Larry R. Dreihaup Award recognizesan individual or an organization who hasprovided leadership, professionalism, and

dedication in promoting ITS in the stateof Georgia during the previous 12 months. Winner: Grant Waldrop, P.E., GeorgiaDepartment of Transportation.

Grant has served in many roles at ITSGeorgia and most recently as board mem-ber. He is a dedicated individual that workstirelessly on any initiative that advancesITS and Operations and Maintenance. Heled the charge on behalf of ITS Georgia inorganizing a very successful and visible ITS3C Conference along with Gulf RegionalITS and ITS Florida. His efforts atGDOT have garnered attention and re-spect for Traffic Signal Operation andMaintenance projects by GDOT manage-ment and decision makers regionally.Through these efforts, he has propelled thedepartment’s disjointed signal programsinto an award winning nationally recog-nized regional arterial management pro-gram. Throughout his career, Grant hasstrived to improve how ITS is done inGeorgia, be it through his mark on thespecifications or management of the largestregion-wide arterial management programin the southeast. Grant serves as mentor tohis colleagues and ITS Georgia member-ship and has acted as champion for ITSand ICM during a time of transition at thestate’s leading ITS agency.

Recently, Grant agreed to representITS Georgia in securing the CompleteStreet Symposium, which will be last of the

series. He is a professional in every aspectand a great ambassador of ITS GA.

Outstanding volunteer Award - Open toall membership, including Board membersand Committee Chairs, who have goneabove and beyond to support ITS Georgiaduring the previous twelve (12) months. Winner: David A. Smith, P.E., SunbeltTraffic, LLC

While serving as a board member,David has assumed several leadership andvolunteer roles within ITS Georgia. Hehelped organize the out of town technicalworkshop in Columbia County in May2013, which drew close to 50 participants.He arranged for some of our monthlymeeting speakers in 2013, including GregNajjar, Sprint Networks ( July 2013) andPhil Spicer, Norfolk Southern (October2013).

When the board was looking for anew meeting facility for 2014, David re-searched various facilities and provided theboard with several options. He made fullarrangements for us to meet at PetiteAuberge Restaurant in February 2014.

David is constantly volunteering histime to assist with chapter activities andinitiatives, including working with XuewenLe this year as the board manager for theactivities committee. He has gone beyondthe call of duty to be worthy of the 2014Outstanding Volunteer Award. v

27DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

ITS Georgia President Tom Sever (second from right) presents the 2014 Project of Significance Award to Bill Gunter,

Shubhendu Mohanty, Matt Glasser, Mark Demidovich, Xuewen Le.

Grant Waldrop (left) winner of the Larry

R. Dreihaup Award with ITS Georgia

President Tom Sever.

28 GEORGIA EnGInEER

ENGINEERING NEWSEPA P3 Grant for SPSu

GEORGIA

A team of SPSU students (known as theSun-Seekers) led by Dr. Bill Diong (Elec-trical Engineering), Dr. Kevin McFall(Mechatronics Engineering), and Prof.Scott Tippens (Electrical EngineeringTechnology), has recently been fundedby the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) to develop a new type of solarpanel. As part of the EPA’s P3—people,prosperity, and the planet —Phase I pro-gram, the team is designing a panel con-taining sun-tracking cells rotated by asmall motor, which can increase dailysolar energy capture by at least 25 per-cent compared to non-tracking solarpanels.

This team follows in the footsteps ofa previous team (see photo below) thatdeveloped a version of this panel wherethe sun-tracking cells were rotated bybimetallic coils—like those found in out-door thermometers and older thermo-stats. That panel increased daily solarenergy capture by about ten percent. Tosee it ‘in action’during lab testing, viewthe video at http://podcasting.gcsu.edu/4DCGI/Podcasting/spsu/Episodes/10427/486822636.mp4 .v

2013 SPSU Sun-Seekers team: (l-r) Manoj Chaulagain, Alex Daly, Pedro Guevarra,

and Teshaun Francis

We have been informed by ABET that in

our enthusiasm we shared too many de-

tails relating to our recent ABET visit and

accreditation findings. (Georgia Engi-

neer Volume 21, Issue 5, October | No-

vember 2014) by Lance Crimm. The

paragraph on page 13 starting with,

“Despite the unrest and uncertainty on

campus...” until the paragraph’s end vi-

olates ABET policy and should be disre-

garded. We apologize for this oversight.

When ABET awards accreditation to a

program, the accreditation action indi-

cates only the nature of the next review

and is not an indicator of the program’s

quality. ~ omas R. Currin, PH.D., P.E.,Dean, School of Engineering, SPSU

AuTHOR’S ERRATum

29DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

The ITS Georgia chapter supports stu-

dent involvement in the engineering pro-

fession and hopes to encourage future

Georgia ITS Engineers through the

Wayne Shackelford Engineering Scholar-

ship Program.

Our 2014 winner of the sixth annualITS Georgia Wayne Shackelford Engi-neering Scholarship is Simon Berrebi, adoctoral candidate at Georgia Tech whodeveloped a method that uses real-time in-formation to control buses on a high-fre-quency route—a technology he hopes tocommercialize upon graduation.

The question answered by this year’sapplicants was: What are the top benefitsand challenges of implementing au-tonomous vehicles in metro Atlanta?

below is the winning abstract.

Recent advancements in sensing and track-ing technologies allow shifting the controlof vehicles from the driver to the vehicle it-self. The paradigm of autonomous vehicleis an old dream: it was presented as the vi-sion for the 1950s at the New York 1939World’s Fair. Later, cars came equippedwith air bags that automatically detectedcrashes, and now with automatic-brakingsystems that avoid collisions. Several com-panies have started working on prototypesthat could operate without a human in thecar, and have completed successful tests onthe highway network.

There is a wide consensus amongtransportation experts that vehicles in thefuture will carry out an increasing numberof driving tasks. However, it is still unclearwhat level of autonomation they willachieve in the next ten to thirty years. Astechnology continually improves, severalquestions regarding the impact of au-tonomous vehicles on the transportationeco-system must be addressed. This paperpresents some of the main benefits andchallenges of implementing autonomousvehicles in metro Atlanta, Georgia. Thetransportation network is already facing se-rious challenges in congestion mitigation,safety, infrastructure funding etc. Au-

tonomous vehicles will relieve some ofthese issues and aggravate others, whilecarrying challenges of their own.

Many of the transportation challengesfacing the metro Atlanta transportationsystem are caused by human behavior andcharacteristics. Human drivers take longerthan computers to react to changing con-ditions and to unexpected events, so theydrive more slowly and dangerously, whileconsuming more fuel and space. In addi-tion, many people do not have access topersonal mobility because of physical dis-abilities, visual impairment, or age, and thistrend will likely increase with the raisinglife expectancy.

By contrast to human drivers, au-tonomous vehicles can be programmed toreact effectively to changes in their sur-rounding conditions. Recent prototypes ofautonomous vehicles were tested on thehighway with a visually impaired passen-ger, and were found to perform better thanhuman drivers. One of the main benefits ofimplementing autonomous vehicles inMetro Atlanta is that individual vehicleswill drive more safely and more efficiently.In addition, autonomous vehicles will pro-vide access to personal mobility for people

who currently cannot drive.The road network is made for the de-

sign driver. The design driver is one of theworst drivers on the road, partly because heor she uses intuition rather than reason tomake decisions. Autonomous vehicles canbe excellent drivers, because they are pro-grammed to react to their environment, butlack the intuition to adjust their decision-making when confronted with an unex-pected situation.

Unexpected situations are unavoidableon a transportation network where millionsof people and vehicles interact on a dailybasis with each other and with surround-ing infrastructure. The interaction betweenhuman drivers and autonomous vehiclescan be dangerous because one can misap-prehend the behavior of the other. Acci-dents may occur, for example, when ahuman suddenly decides to take control ofhis or her vehicle, or when a human and anautonomous car compete for right of wayat an intersection with a broken traffic sig-nal. To prevent these situations, the rules ofdriving for humans would have to change,and there should be very specific standardsto make autonomous driving as predictableas possible.

As the need for human involvement inthe task of driving will diminish, the costand the overall burden of transportationwill decrease. For-hire rides will becomecheaper as the salary of the human driverwill be excluded from the price. Au-tonomous cars will be able to park them-selves or to become for-hire vehicles untiltheir owners hail them back. Commuterswill be able to multi-task in their car ontheir way to work. As inexpensive, reliable,and fast transportation solutions that donot require vehicle ownership will arise, thedemand for personally owned vehicles willdiminish, but the demand for transporta-tion will increase.

As the cost of transportation will de-crease, people will most likely alter theirtravel behavior by making more trips, trav-eling farther, and shifting modes to the au-tomobile. This change in travel patterns

ITS Georgia chapter Supports through Wayne Shackelford Engineering Scholarship Program

ITS Georgia President Tom Sever (left),

congratulates Simon Berrebi, winner of

the 2014 Wayne Shackelford Scholarship

Winner.

30 GEORGIA EnGInEER

will put a strain on the transportation net-work, which will become more congestedand more damaged by the increased de-mand in vehicular transportation. In addi-tion, it will likely spur changes in land usepatterns as commuters will be willing tolive farther away from their work.

The implementation of autonomous

vehicles in Atlanta will a have deep impacton traffic operations and travel patterns.The autonomous vehicles will be designedto drive more safely and efficiently thanhuman drivers, and they will give personalmobility access to people who cannot drive.There remain, however, technological andlegal challenges whereas to the interaction

of autonomous vehicles with humans driv-ers and the built environment. The imple-mentation of autonomous vehicles will alsodiminish the cost of transportation inmetro Atlanta, and reduce the need for per-sonally owned vehicles, but it will also in-crease the demand for transportation andput a strain on the road network. v

Georgia Institute of Technology Renovates Residence Halls, clemson university Plans new and Replacement Space within core campus Precinct

Stevens & Wilkinson, a full-service archi-

tecture, engineering and interior design

firm based in Atlanta and columbia, South

carolina, today announced ongoing

progress of two new higher education

housing development projects. The proj-

ects include renovation of the historic

Glenn and Towers Residence Halls at Geor-

gia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and

a comprehensive redesign of clemson uni-

versity’s core campus Housing Precinct in

clemson, South carolina.

Georgia Institute of Technology hasretained Stevens & Wilkinson to providearchitectural, engineering, and interior de-sign services for a comprehensive renova-tion of the Glenn and Towers ResidenceHalls.

The firm, in association with VMDOArchitects, will completely replace allbuilding infrastructure systems, making thefacilities accessible to the disabled and pro-viding new student amenities. A new8,400-square-foot addition will connectthe two residences, fulfilling the original1940 master plan, and feature a fitness cen-ter, multipurpose meeting room, classroom,and small group study rooms.

“The 616 residents will enjoy new ex-panded social and study lounges, restrooms,and laundries on every floor,” said RonStang, AIA, LEED AP and chairman forStevens & Wilkinson, Georgia. “The ren-ovation scope includes incorporating newelevators, converting existing open atticspaces into two new residential floors, andreplacing slate roofs and historically accu-rate windows.”

Exterior grounds will also be re-designed to create new outdoor spaces forrecreation and entertainment as well as a

new accessible route through the sector ofcampus where the residences are located. The three-year, 125,000-square-foot proj-ect is on track to achieve LEED Gold cer-tification from the U.S. Green BuildingCouncil.

“The renovation of the halls sets thestage for the establishment of enriched stu-dent living accommodations that are inkeeping with the high level of standards forwhich Georgia Tech is known,” said Stang.Renovation statistics include 63,259 squarefeet of floor space and four stories at GlennHall, 53,116 square feet and three storiesat Towers Hall, and 8,400 square feet at theNew East Campus Commons. The Glennand Towers renovation is targeted for com-pletion in 2015.

As part of the Campus Master Plan, astudy was conducted to answer the ques-tion: “How might forward-looking ap-proaches to housing, academic, dining, andstudent life programs be combined into anintense, innovative, and dynamic mixed-usecenter for Clemson University?”

To resolve the question, VMDO Ar-chitects, the firm directing the design of the700-bed housing initiative, sought the col-laboration of Stevens & Wilkinson in con-junction with Sasaki Associates to develop

a clear and engaging vision for theprecinct’s evolution.

"The design fits very well with theCampus Master Plan and has embellishedit in ways we could never have otherwisearticulated,” said Gerald Vander May, di-rector, campus planning for Clemson Uni-versity. “The program was very challenging,but through innovative problem solvingand tireless interaction, the team has takenthe complex goals of the university andfashioned a vision that has taken root.”

The architecture, engineering, andlandscape design services provided byStevens & Wilkinson will involve 179,000residential square feet, 76,000 dining squarefeet, and 5,000 academic square feet, result-ing in 260,000 gross square feet of new con-struction and 700 beds. The ClemsonUniversity Core Campus Housing projectis scheduled for completion in 2016.

“Beyond square footage and new con-struction, the project aspires to much more,including the design and development ofquality campus life for students and newforms of housing that support the univer-sity’s desire for a multi-purpose, mixed-usecenter of living and learning,” said AshbyGressette, AIA and president of Stevens &Wilkinson.v

31DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

Merrick & Company welcomes three newmembers to the firm’s Geospatial team.“The new additions represents our com-mitment to grow our market share inAlaska and the lower 48,” said Gary Out-law, Vice President of Merrick. “Withtheir contributing talents, Merrick will beable to continue growing our surveyingand remote sensing offerings.”

Scott North, PLS, joined Merrick asthe Southeast Regional Survey Managerbased in Merrick’s Duluth, Georgia, office.North is a registered professional landsurveyor in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,Tennessee, and Virginia and has 14 yearsof experience in the survey profession.Additionally, North holds a Certified Fed-eral Surveyor (CFedS) license and is ac-tive in several professional organizations.North received his Bachelor of Engineer-ing, Surveying, and Spatial InformationSystems from the University of NewSouth Wales, Australia.

James (Jamie) W. Young, GISP, joinedMerrick as Senior Geospatial Technologistin Greenwood Village, Colorado. Young isa GIS Professional with 20 years of expe-rience in remote sensing and is compe-tent in (light detection and ranging)LiDAR, digital imaging, and GIS applica-tions development. Young is co-chair ofthe LiDAR sub-committee for the Ameri-

can Society for Photogrammetry and Re-mote Sensing (ASPRS) and is often calledupon for LiDAR specification review forASPRS, United States Geological Survey(USGS), and Federal Emergency Manage-ment Agency (FEMA). Young holds aBachelor of Arts in technical geographyfrom the University of Colorado.

Charles Barnwell joined Merrick asthe Geomatics Regional Manager in thefirm’s Anchorage, Alaska, office. Barnwellhas 25 years of experience in GIS man-agement, database development, applica-tions design, implementation,management, and specialty systems de-velopment in a variety of industries, in-cluding natural resources, local

government, and transportation. Barnwellwill lead business development growth inAlaska and has extensive project man-agement experience in GIS, surveying,and mapping (LiDAR). Barnwell receivedhis Master of Science in planning from theUniversity of Alaska and Bachelor of Sci-ence in geology from the University ofWisconsin. v

32 GEORGIA EnGInEER

merrick Welcomes new members to its Geospatial Team

James W.

young

Scott north

charles

barnwell

Don’t miss a single issue of the

Georgia Engineer magazine!

Subscribe today online at

thegeorgiaengineer.com

Professional Service Industries Inc. (PSI)is pleased to announce the promotion ofJames Johnson to project manager of itsKennesaw Environmental/Facilities De-partment. He was originally hired Aug.25 as staff architect.

Mr. Johnson earned his ProfessionalMaster of Architecture from SavannahCollege of Art and Design in Georgia, hisMaster of Science of Architecture fromMississippi State University and his Bach-

elor of Science in Industrial Technologyfrom Mississippi Valley State University.

PSI provides a wide range of environ-mental, engineering, and testing services,including: environmental consulting, ge-otechnical engineering, construction ma-terials testing and engineering, industrial

hygiene services, facilities and roof con-sulting, NDE, and specialty engineeringand testing services. Headquartered inOakbrook Terrace Ill., PSI operates from100 US based offices with 2,300 employ-ees and $260 million in annual revenues.v

PSI promotes James Johnson

James

Johnson

33DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

Georgia Tech Appoints William Higginbotham to cEE board

ET Environmental President and CEO Be-gins Three-Year Term

The Georgia Institute of Technologyhas appointed William (Bill) Higgin-botham, PE, President and CEO of ET En-vironmental Corporation, to the School ofCivil & Environmental Engineering Exter-nal Advisory Board (EAB). The EAB meetstwice per year for a three year term withthe option of a second term. The 2014 fallmeeting will be held October 31.

Georgia Tech is consistently rankedamong the top undergraduate and gradu-ate civil and environmental engineeringprograms in the country, graduating morestudents than MIT, Stanford, Berkley, orIllinois. The responsibilities of the EAB areto promote and advocate for the schoolnationally and internationally; provide ad-vice and strategy to the chair, faculty, andstaff leadership; and provide financial

support individually and through externalfund raising efforts. The activities of theEAB have consistently played a significantrole in the overall success of the school.“My experience at Tech has been invalu-able to my career, and this is my chance

to give something back in return,” says BillHigginbotham, Georgia Tech alumni andAtlanta area resident. Mr. Higginbothamjoins 29 distinguished members on thisprestigious board.

About ET Environmental

ET Environmental is an independent de-sign/build firm with in-house professionalengineers and construction managers in14 offices in the US and Canada. The com-pany focuses on design and constructionof alternative fueling infrastructure andmaintenance facilities as well as all areasof the solid waste industry. Founded in1993, ET Environmental has blended en-vironmental expertise and constructionmanagement systems into a comprehen-sive design/build service model. Contact:Tina Reed, ET Environmental Corporation,LLC, 602-920-7852, treed@etenv.comv

bill

Higginbotham

34 GEORGIA EnGInEER

Ten or more years ago, I decided to getinvolved with ACEC Georgia because I

loved my life choice of becoming anEngineer. The problem, I discovered, withthe profession I so dearly love, was it isbeing dumbed down to a commodity. Itseemed that many of our clients (orpotential clients) seemed only interested inone thing; “How much does it cost?”Rather than “What value do you bring tothe table?” Sadly, I found clients makingconsultant selections based on how cheaptheir fees are rather than whether the firmis qualified to perform the work. And thenthe realization of competing firms reversebidding for work set in. “If he can do it for$1.00, then I will do it for $0.95.” Candidly,this irritated me to the point that I decidedI have to do something. So, I asked myself,“Do you want to make a difference? Then

get involved!” I was recently having a discussion with

a business associate, and we were talkingabout the value of ACEC. His concernwith becoming a member was related tocost, and I reminded him that “if we don’tlook out for our profession, who is goingto?” The truth is, we have to look afterourselves because no one else will. If I amnot looking out for my business, I certainlycannot expect good things to happen.

I have become increasingly aware thatthe beginning of failure comes when wetake our eye off the ball. We have to stayfocused on the right things. There willforever be new legislation proposed thatcan and will have adverse effects on our

AcEc Georgia

Political Advocacy• Advocating at all levels of government to advance policies that impactthe business of engineering in Georgia.

• Monitoring the regulatory issues and government agency actions thataffect engineers.

• Working for a more pro-business climate and defending against unfairbusiness practices.

• Fighting to protect the professional engineering practice.

Business Development• Providing networking opportunities, meetings, and programs that putyou in contact with potential clients, industry peers, and the leaders ofthe engineering profession.

• Hosting the Georgia Engineers Summer Conference, TransportationSummit, P3 Summit, and other programs that expand your professionalknowledge and network.

• Offering informative and relevant seminars, programs, and webinarswith presentations from leaders who affect our industry andcommunity.

Firm Operations• Providing a forum for the exchange of business and professionalexperiences.

• Offering programs and resources on best business practices formember firms.

• Sponsoring the Future Leaders Program to build the next generation ofleaders within member firms and the engineering profession.

• We provide executive development training for emerging leaders andfirm management.

The Value of ACEC GeorgiaServing your firm’s business

interests through:

News

Darrell K.

Rochester, PEChairmanACEC Georgia

(678) 450-5161dkrochester@rochester-assoc.com

35DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

businesses. If we are not paying attention,guess what? The proposed legislation willbecome law, and the next thing you know,it is too late to do anything about it. ACECis in the business of protecting andadvancing the business of engineering.Sully, the staff, and board of directors arelooking out for our profession.

There are those that do not want to bebothered. They will just let someone elsetake care of it. What is that about?Laziness? Complacency? Do they thinktheir involvement doesn’t matter anyway?We have to get ready to rumble! Knocksome heads! Duke it out! Fight for what isrightfully ours! Otherwise, you can counton your fees getting cheaper and cheaper.You can also get prepared for moregovernment regulation. The best way toavoid complacency is to strive forcontinuous improvement. Greatorganizations or companies constantly askquestions, challenge assumptions, andcreate a sense of urgency. Everyoneinvolved actively works toward makingthings better. I believe that ‘many handsmake light work.’ Imagine if we all chippedin and did our part. I believe we could seegreat things happen. We would have theopportunity to lift our profession to a new

level.“The tragedy of life is often not in our

failure, but rather in our complacency; notin our doing too much, but rather in ourdoing too little; not in our living above ourability, but rather in our living below ourcapacities,” said Benjamin E. Mays

As I shared in the last issue, we aremoving around the state to hear your issues.We met in Macon in September,Greensboro in October, Rome inNovember, and we plan to be in Columbusin January. From these meetings, werecognize there is a wealth of knowledgeand ideas each of you have that needs to betapped. There is a need to hold focusgroups based on your particular area ofexpertise. One of our longstanding focusgroups is the Transportation Forum, whichhas been tremendously successful. Becauseof the expressed need in other areas, we willbe starting additional forums as soon as wecan get enough people engaged to helpmake it happen. We plan to start or restartthe Building Systems Forum (MEP firms),Energy Forum, Environmental Forum,Geotechnical Forum, Land DevelopmentForum, Small Firm Forum, and StructuralEngineers Forum.

But, here is the deal…Do you want to

make a difference? Do you care about theengineering profession? If you care like Ido, you need to “Get in the game!” We needfor you to invest some of your time andthose great ideas you have locked away inthat noggin of yours. We cannot do italone. We need for you to participate inone of the forums. Our futures arecounting on your involvement.

If you or your firm is not a member ofACEC, we would like to talk with youabout the benefits of membership. If youare a member and you have ideas of howACEC can better serve your firm or theengineering community, please let us know.Also, if you are a member of ACEC, pleaseconsider taking the time to share yourpersonal story about how ACEC hasbenefitted you and your firm. There is nobetter way to help others see our value thanthrough the eyes of someone they knowand trust.

I wish you all a wonderful Christmasand a Happy and Prosperous New Year!

Darrell K. Rochester, P.E. Chairmandkrochester@rochester-assoc.com(678) 450-5161 v

ACEC GEORGIA MEMBER FIRMS

Board of DirectorsDarrell K. Rochester, Chairman / Roseana Richards, Chairman-elect / Jay C. Wolverton, Past Chair / Charles Ezelle, Treas-urer / John Heath, Secretary / Dave L. Wright, National Director / Jim Case, Vice Chair / Don Harris, Vice Chair / RobertLewis, Vice Chair / Anita Atkinson, Director / Daveitta Jenkins, Director / Emily Meador, Director / Kevin McOmber, Direc-

tor / Al Pramuk, Director / Charles ‘Corky’ Welch, Director / Brent Wright, Director / Taylor Wright, Director

StaffMichael ‘Sully’ Sullivan, President & CEO

Jennifer Head, Director of Membership & Programs

Brittney Love,Director of Finance & Operations

Shawna Mercer,Director of Communica-tions and Government Affairs

CommitteesKevin McOmber, Government Affairs/PACDavid Wright, ACEC PAC ChampionRob Lewis, Business DevelopmentJim Case & Don Harris, Firm OperationsJohn Heath, CoalitionsDoug Robinson, CommunicationsBrannen Butts & David McFarlin, Leadership DevelopmentCharles Ezelle, MembershipJay Wolverton, NominatingJay Wolverton, Past Presidents/ChairmenScott Gero, Transportation Forum

ForumsBill Griffin, Building Systems

Corky Welch, Environmental

Chris Marsengill, Transportation

Brannen Butts, Leadership

dkrochester@rochester-

assoc.com

(678) 450-5161

36 GEORGIA EnGInEER

Activity in the Georgia Section continuesto increase. Volunteers continue to step for-ward to create great programs for ourmembers including informative institutemeetings, fun younger member events andextensive student outreach. This year’sBoard of Directors is very active in attend-ing events, planning for the future of theGeorgia Section and answering memberquestions.

Student Outreach

Last year we reached over 12,000 studentsthrough our student outreach program, en-couraging students to become civil engi-neers. It’s a tough challenge. Civilengineering just doesn’t sound as cool asbiomedical engineering, which is a top pickamong engineering students today. Butcivil engineering is a career where peoplecan make a difference in the world aroundthem and have meaningful work while rais-ing families and being a part of their com-munity. Encouraging future civil engineersis important for the future of infrastructurein our country, and therefore, important topublic safety and our future economy. Aspecial thanks to External DirectorShaukat Syed and the many volunteers forour student programs.

collaboration

In October I spoke at the American Soci-ety of Landscape Architects Gala at Pied-mont Park. Younger Member Director

Annie Blissit attended with me and it wasinteresting to see their winning projectsand talk about how engineers, landscapearchitects and architects can better collab-orate. While we focus on infrastructure,landscape architects bring a perspective oftying to the natural environment and cre-ating livable communities that should beincluded in the design process. They arealso supporters of transit and transporta-tion enhancements, which the 2014 Geor-gia Infrastructure Report Card identifies asareas of great need in Georgia.

AScE national board

Georgia Section Past-President MelissaWheeler was installed on the ASCE na-tional board of directors in October inPanama City, Panama. The ASCE nationalorganization continues to grow and providesupport to sections such as the GeorgiaSection. It is an honor to have a GeorgiaSection member on the board.

volunteers needed

The Georgia Section has a number ofcommittees. We have two committees indesperate need of leadership. The Contin-uing Education committee coordinates ed-ucational activities that provide PDH

credits for civil engineers. The “What DoCivil Engineers Do?” Contest occurs in thespring and gives middle school students theopportunity to learn about civil engineeringand receive cash prizes. If you are interestedin either of these committees, please con-tact me.

Report card update

On September 30, 2014 Internal DirectorRick Gurney testified before the JointTransportation Funding Study Committeeon the findings of the 2014 Georgia Infra-structure Report Card. Many GDOTBoard members were present, as well asheads of transit and transportation systemsin the state. In January the legislative cyclebegins again and we will continue to bedown at the Capitol talking to our electedofficials about infrastructure issues.

upcoming

Be sure to check out our award winningwebsite at www.ascega.org for upcomingevents including Georgia Section meetings,Younger Member events and Institutemeetings. On December 16th we are hold-ing the first ever Holiday Party at RedBrick Brewery. This should be a great eventwith all of the Technical Groups invited. v

Rebecca Shelton,

P.E., President

American Society

of Civil

Engineers,

Georgia Section

www.ascega.org

News

Rebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com

AScE Georgia

37DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

PRESIDENTRebecca Shelton, PE Gwinnett County DWRrebecca.shelton@gwinnettcounty.com

President-ElectRichard Morales, PELB Foster Pilingrmorales@lbfoster.com

Vice PresidentDaniel Agramonte, PE

O'Brien & Geredaniel.agramonte@obg.com

TreasurerChristina Vulova, PE Arcadis US Inc. christina.vulova@arcadis-us.com

SecretaryJulie Secrist, PE

TY Lin International Groupjulie.secrist@tylin.com

External DirectorShaukat SyedGeorgia EPDshaukat.syed@dnr.state.ga.us

Internal Director Rick Gurney, PEKeck & Wood Inc.rgurney@keckwood.com

Technical DirectorLuis Babler, PEGeo-Hydro Engineers Inc.luis@geohydro.com

Younger Member DirectorAnnie Blissit, EITGresham, Smith, and Partnersann_blissit@gspnet.com

N.E. Ga. Branch DirectorJ. Matthew Tanner, PEBreedlove Land Planning Inc.mtanner@landplanning.net

Savannah Branch DirectorChris Rains, PEChatham County Dept. of Engineeringcrains@chathamcounty.org

South Metro Branch DirectorDoug Hintz, PEFAA - Retireddouglas.hintz@gmail.com

Past PresidentKatherine Gurd, PE  AECOMkatherine.gurd@aecom.com

ASCE/GEORGIA SECTION 2014 - 2015 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

38 GEORGIA EnGInEER

A famous US president once wrote: “Asknot what your country can do for you —ask what you can do for your country.” So,as your president, I will ask those samequestions. First, what is GSPE doing foryou?

Well, we’ve done quite a bit in recentweeks and had a great time in the process!If you were not a part of some of the activ-ities we’ve hosted during the past twomonths, you are missing out. So what didyou miss?

new PE Recognition Dinner – OnWednesday, October 1 we celebrated theaccomplishments of those who recentlypassed the Professional Engineering exam.This year, 158 men and women passed thisdifficult test to join the ranks of otherhighly competent engineers. We celebratedat the Georgia Tech Hotel and ConferenceCenter, enjoying a wonderful dinner fol-lowed by an excellent speech from HarveHnatiuk, President of NSPE. The eveningclosed with the new PEs’ recitation of theEngineers Creed followed by the Order ofthe Engineer Ceremony. Congratulationsto all 158 engineers who passed this examduring the past year.

mATHcOunTS Golf Tournament – OnFriday, October 17 – one of the year’s mostbeautiful days – we played golf. The sunwas out in full fall brightness. The temper-

ature was just perfect including a slightcool breeze. The air was crisp. The onlything wrong was my play. Fortunately I hada great group of golfers picking up myslack. We awarded prizes to lots of con-testants, but Wayne Cox and Jarred Jack-son took the prize as the best golfer in thetournament. We had some magnificentsponsors including: Gold Sponsor Schn-

abel Engineering, LLC; Silver SponsorsSouthern Company, Hydro Generation,and Wolverton & Associates, Inc.; andBronze Sponsors Integrated Science andEngineering, Prime Engineering, and AR-CADIS. Thanks also to Canongate I GolfClub in Sharpsburg for hosting a fantasticevent.

PDH Days – Georgia Tech hosted thePDH Days events on Friday, November 7.More than 100 attendees listened to TomLeslie discuss engineering ethics and RickMarotte of AMEC described challengesassociated with the Savannah Harbor Ex-pansion. We had tracks on forensic engi-neering and State of Florida rules andregulations. We ended the afternoon with apresentation demonstrating how LinkedIn3D printing can be used to improve yourbusiness. The event also provides an excel-lent time to network and see old friends.

Atlanta chapter – GSPE’s Atlanta Chap-ter meets the second Monday of eachmonth at the Piccadilly Cafeteria nearNorthlake Mall in Tucker. I was fortunateto attend the meeting in September. It wasa fantastic evening seeing lots of folks andlistening to Professor Haiying Huang ofGeorgia Tech teach us about safety, eco-nomic, and environmental issues associatedwith fracking. If you aren’t attending, youare missing out on some great topics. RogerGrabman, keep up the great work.

Relaunch of cobb chapter – GSPE’sCobb Chapter relaunched its organizationin September. The chapter hosted its firstmeeting in October, with Secretary of StateBrian Kemp providing an update on theProfessional Licensing Board. In Novem-ber, John Hancock, Project Manager of theNorthwest Corridor Project, gave an excel-lent overview of the project and its impacton Cobb County. The Cobb Chaptermeets the second Wednesday of eachmonth.

So now I get to ask, “What can you do

GSPE Georgia

Rob MacPherson,

P.E., President

Georgia Society

of Professional

Engineers

News

Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, wasthe guest speaker at the GSPE Cobb Chapter

Meeting in October

Jason Cooper ( Geotechnical & Environmen-tal Consultants) served as the 2014 MATH-

COUNTS Golf Tournament Chair

for GSPE?” First: Join GSPE. It promotesthe ethical and competent practice of en-gineering, advocates licensure, and en-hances the image and well-being of itsmembers (that’s you). Second: Get involvedin your local chapter. We have chapters inNorthwest Georgia, Atlanta, Cobb, North-east Georgia, Augusta, Macon, and an up-coming chapter in Columbus. Attendmonthly meetings, sign up to help withMATHCOUNTS or E-Week, or justcome and hang out.

One of our main focuses for GSPEthis year is to make MATHCOUNTS inGeorgia better than ever. To do so we needyour help. If interested in giving back andperhaps encouraging a young man orwoman to become an engineer, please call(404) 425-7100 or email me (rmacpher-son@prime-eng.com). I look forward tohearing from you. And to all those alreadyinvolved, you are making a difference.Thank you and keep up the good work. v

39DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

Prime Engineering Golf Team

1st Place Team Jarred Jackson (integrated Sci-ence and Engineering) and Wayne Cox (LOCEngineering)

Greetings once again from Georgia ITEheadquarters in lovely Egypt, GA (not beconfused with that other town Cairo, GA)to all Georgia Engineering Magazinereaders! I can’t believe that we have come tothe end of 2014 and thus the end of mypresidential reign (unless that I can get theBoard to agree to that “lifetime”amendment clause…). I was most honoredto lead our amazing organization this year,as I have grown a lot personally and havehad the opportunity to reflect and thinkdeeply on who we are and where we aregoing as an organization. Our future is verybright, beginning with the group on theboard and extending to the many new andyounger members that have joined ITE thisyear (are they really younger or am I justthat much older?…). It has been trulyamazing how many younger members havenot just joined but become active in theorganization. I recall one lunch meetingwhen I saw a young woman I didn’trecognize working at the registration tableand asked how long had she been attending.To which she replied, “this is my firstmeeting”. Thanks Meridith for engaging(and arm-twisting?) others this year.

I am encouraged that we are growingyounger and stronger. In preparing apresentation on innovation for our sisterorganization ASHE (who we arepartnering with to offer the 5th AnnualWinter Workshop – see advertisement

below), I reflected on how important it isthat we as an organization and we as thetransportation industry compete forgraduating young minds. There are somany career paths available that may seemmore “attractive” or at least get moreattention than engineering, and thus itmust be our constant mission to reach outand show our current and future grads allthat our industry has to offer. Yes, it is easyto be pessimistic about current and futuretransportation funding levels, but it isequally easy to be optimistic about thechanges and innovations that are takingplace in our industry. The first traffic signal

arrived exactly 100 years ago, and sincethen we have innovated and created newways to transport people, goods andservices, new and safer vehicles, thenational interstate system to name a few –all that required the brightest and bestminds in society. Now we are on the vergeof incredible changes in vehicle technology,managing roadways for mobility, andinnovating construction techniques toname a few – all that will require thebrightest and best minds in society. I ammore committed now than ever to gettingthat message out to continue to attract thebest engineers for the future of our noble

40 GEORGIA EnGInEER

Jonathan Reid, PE

Georgia Section,

Institute of

Transportation

Engineers

NewsITE Georgia

Past presidents

and important industry. To do so may be assimple as going into the classrooms atschools and universities in our verybackyard and showing them some of thegreat projects, tools and innovations ourprofession has to offer. Will you help inthat cause in 2015?

The other event that always leaves alasting impression on me is our pastpresidents meeting held in October. Thisyear we had 26 of our past 52 presidents(including our very first president JohnEdwards) gather together to hear what wehave accomplished and what the incomingpresident and board can do to improve howwe serve our members, organization andindustry. The focus of the meeting washow to attract new and young members(see a theme here?) and how to expand ourcommittees’ outreach to include the diverseinterests and sub disciplines of ourmembers. “Transportation Engineering”casts a wide net, and we hope to make ourfuture meetings, events and initiatives asinclusive as possible to our diversemembership base (no pressure on youAndrew, Mr. Future President). We willalso focus on better partnerships with ourstudent chapters and engage in school andcommunity events to get the word outthere that there are some greatopportunities in being a transportationengineer. ITE does have a bright future andI thank the many board, committee andactive members who have served the ITEorganization well in 2014.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers isan international educational and scientif icassociation of transportation professionals whoare responsible for meeting mobility and safetyneeds. ITE facilitates the application oftechnology and scientific principles to research,planning, functional design, implementation,operation, policy development andmanagement for any mode of groundtransportation. Through its products andservices, ITE promotes professionaldevelopment of its members, supports andencourages education, stimulates research,develops public awareness programs andserves as a conduit for the exchange ofprofessional information. v

41DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

Board Position Member E-mail PhonePresident Jonathan Reid reid@pbworld.com (404) 364-5225Vice President Andrew Antweiler aantweiler@roswellgov.com (678) 639-7540Secretary/Treasurer Sean Coleman sean.coleman@kimley-horn.com (404) 419-8700Past President Dwayne Tedder dwayne.tedder@urs.com (404) 406-8791District Representative David Low dlow@roswellgov.com (770) 594-6422District Representative Vern Wilburn vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com (678) 423-0050District Representative Marion Waters marion_waters@gspnet.com (770) 754-0755Affiliate Director Meg Pirkle mpirkle@dot.ga.gov (404) 631-1025

Committee Activities Chair(s) E-mail PhoneActivities Kate D’Ambrosio kdambrosio@dot.ga.gov (404) 635-2842Annual Report David Low dlow@roswellgov.com (770) 594-6422Audio/Visual Mark Boivin markboivin@alltrafficdata.net (404) 374-1283Awards/Nominations Dwayne Tedder dwayne.tedder@urs.com (404) 406-8791Career Guidance Amy Diaz amy.diaz@jacobs.com (678) 333-0283Clerk Elizabeth Scales escales@thompsonengineering.com (404) 574-1985Comptroller Jim Pohlman j.pohlman@icloud.com (404) 790-3569Engineers Week Amy Diaz amy.diaz@jacobs.com (678) 333-0283Finance Charles Bopp charles_bopp@hotmail.com (678) 380-9053Georgia Engineer magazine Dan Dobry ddobry@croyengineering.com (770) 971-5407Georgia Tech Liaison Chris Rome crome@fg-inc.net (770) 368-1399Historian Charles Bopp charles_bopp@hotmail.com (678) 380-9053Host Meredith Emory meredith.emory@kimley-horn.com (404) 201-6133Legislative Affairs Bill Ruhsam bill@jbwr.net (404) 931-6478Life Membership Don Gaines dgaines@gcaeng.com (404) 355-4010Marketing/Social Media Patrick McAtee pmcatee@thompsonengineering.com (404) 574-1985 Membership Sunita Nadella sunita.nadella@parsons.com (678) 969-2304Monthly Meetings Andrew Antweiler aantweiler@roswellgov.com (678) 639-7540Newsletter Vern Wilburn vwilburn@wilburnengineering.com (678) 423-0050 Past Presidents Todd Long tlong@dot.ga.gov (404) 631-1021Public Officials Education Scott Mohler scott.mohler@urs.com (678) 808-8811Scholarship Betsy Williams betsy.williams@transcore.com (770) 246-6247Southern Poly Liaison Bryan Sartin bryan_sartin@gspnet.com (678) 518-3884Summer Seminar Marco Friend marco.friend@jacobs.com (678) 333-0408Technical France Campbell france.campbell@aecom.com (404) 965-9738Web site Vamshi Mudumba VamshiM@LAIengineering.com (770) 423-0807 Winter Workshop Jonathan Wallace jonathan.wallace@arcadis-us.com (770) 431-8666

42 GEORGIA EnGInEER

Control Technologies

Utilicom

Temple

Arcadis

Atkins

World Fiber Technologies

Kimley-Horn & Associates

Southern Lighting & Traffic Systems

Delcan

Gresham Smith & Partners

Grice Consulting

Jacobs

Parsons Brinkerhoff

Quality Traffic Systems

URS

Transcore

OUR 2013/2014 SPONSORS

The year 2014 was a year of purpose andaccomplishment for ITS Georgia. I wantto give special thanks to our many hardworking volunteers for making it a hugesuccess. Here are some highlights as pre-sented at the 2014 ITS Georgia AwardsBanquet:

From January through August 2014,we had eight outstanding monthly meet-ings. I want to thank Xuewen Le andDavid Smith for their efforts in lining upspeakers and arranging the venues.

In February, we had the LegislativeReception in partnership with ASCE andITE. We had a great venue in the AtlantaCity Hall atrium and the opportunity tohear from Mayor Reed. I want to thankWill Hurst, Yancy Bachman and WorldFiber Technologies for helping to make ita successful evening.

In March, the Board members had theopportunity to tour the AT&T Drive Stu-dio in Atlanta to see their concept of a con-nected vehicle. It was very interesting and

shed a lot of light on how the connectedvehicle will move forward outside of gov-ernment regulation. I want to thank ScottBailey for helping to set that up.

Then in September, we finally came tothe ITS 3C Summit in Mobile, Alabama.After 2 plus years of planning and hardwork by many of our members and thefolks at ITS Florida and Gulf Region ITS,it was an awesome event. In fact, it wasprobably the best conference that I havebeen able to attend. There were excellenttechnical sessions, cool technical tours anda BATTLESHIP! I want to give my per-sonal thanks to all the volunteers from ITSGeorgia and in the other chapters that putin so much time and effort to make theSummit a success.

News

ITS GEORGIA CHAPTER LEADERSHIP

President

Tom Sever, Gwinnett DOT

vice President

Grant Waldrop, GDOT

Secretary

Jennifer Johnson, Kimley-Horn

Treasurer

Ashlyn Morgan, Atkins

Immediate Past President

Scott Mohler, URS

Directors

Mark Demidovich, GDOTEric Graves, City of Alpharetta

Winter Horbal, Temple Inc.Keary Lord, Serco

David Smith, DeKalb County TransportationPrasoon Sinha, ARCADIS

Mike Holt, Parsons Brinkerhoff, Yancy Bachmann, World Fiber,

Kenn Fink, Kimley-Horn, Kristin Turner, Wolverton Associates

Elect - Derrick Crowder, City of RoswellElect - Alvin James of Kimley-Horn

Elect - Andy Phlegar, AtkinsElect - Eli Veith of Veith Traffic Services

State chapters Representative

Shahram Malek, Arcadis

Ex Officio

Greg Morris, Federal Highway Administration

Andres Ramirez, FTA

ITS Georgia missionWe believe that ITS is a valuable tool forimproved management of any trans-portation system, regardless of the in-herent complexity of the system. ITS canhelp operate, manage, and maintain thesystem once it has been constructed.

We believe that ITS should be sys-tematically incorporated into the earli-est stages of project development,especially into the planning and designof transportation projects.

We believe the best way to achievethis systematic incorporation into theprocess is through a coordinated, com-prehensive program to ‘get out the word’on ITS to constituencies that might nototherwise consider the relevance of ITSto their transportation system.

ITS Georgia

Tom Sever, P.E.

ITS President

43DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

To cap off 2014, we were recognized as the2014 Outstanding Chapter of the Year byITS America at the World Congress. Ingranting the award ITS Georgia was citedfor “a superb level of programming, foster-ing the highest qualities of leadershipamong its members, advocating for ITS so-lutions at the state and regional levels, andproviding outstanding value overall to itsmembership.”

Our 2014 Awards Banquet, held No-vember 6, was a great success with an en-tertaining program and recognition forthose deserving professionals and projects.You can read more about our winners onpage 26. I want to thank outgoing ITSGeorgia Board members Kristen Turner,Eric Graves, David Smith and PrasoonSinha for their invaluable service to the or-ganization over the years. I want to wel-come new board members DerrickCrowder, Alvin James, Andy Phlegar andEli Veith.

That sounds like a pretty good yearand we could have coasted until January.But, at the request of ITS America, weworked with them to host the CompleteStreets Symposium in November. Again,we have had members step up to take lead-ership roles and make presentations. I willtake this opportunity to thank Eric Gravesand Shahram Malek for being our co-chairs on the planning committee.

As we moved through the year, wecontinued to look to the future. The Boardof Directors is looking at ways to increasethe value of ITSGA membership to ourmember organizations. We have selectedthe Jekyll Island Club to host our 2015 ITSGeorgia annual meeting in late September.I am confident that the folks that will beinvolved with the planning of that meetingwill make it both a great learning and en-tertaining event.

ITS Leading the Innovation in Future

Transportation – A Look at the big

Picture

ITS is poised to transform transportationinto a connected, dynamic component ofthe city-as-a-system. Perhaps more impor-tantly, the greater ease in moving about willhave a positive impact on quality of life andcommerce for residents, visitors and localbusinesses.

“Cities are struggling with transporta-tion today and will struggle even more inthe future,” said Bill Ford, Jr., executivechairman of the Ford Motor Company,while addressing the ITS World Congressin Detroit in September 2014. “We need toredefine what mobility is for the comingcentury.”

According to Ford, it is incrementaltechnological advancement that will oneday lead to driverless cars.

“By the time we get to full autonomy,the last step won’t seem like such a bigdeal,” he said. “Even as we put in a lot ofthese features the driver still has to be vig-ilant and in control.”

“Instead of a bunch of independentsystems on the local, national or even globallevel, ITS creates a transportation networkthat works like the Internet, where every-thing is connected, but also open for stan-dards-based communication, whichreduces costs and creates value for every-one involved in managing traffic,” saidDavid Pickeral, who leads the IndustrySmarter Solutions Team for Transportationat IBM.

“The connected vehicle technologiesare ready,” said Suzanne Murtha, seniorprogram manager for intelligent trans-portation initiatives at Atkins Global.“Now it’s a matter of governments captur-ing and sharing data about real-time, on-the-street traffic conditions so drivers canmake better choices.”

To support deployment of connectedand autonomous vehicles, agencies need toplan for the associated infrastructure re-quired (fiber-optic and supporting net-works, traffic management centerequipment, and roadside equipment), ad-dress staffing needs, and consider datamanagement and privacy concerns. Con-nected vehicle systems using DedicatedShort Range Communications (DSRC)are specifically designed to protect privacyby not associating data with any particularvehicle or driver; however, privacy advo-cates are already raising objections. Agen-cies need to be ready to effectivelycommunicate privacy details and policies.

In a recent Governing Institute survey,78 percent of respondents indicated lack offunding was the key barrier to developingITS, well ahead of the 45 percent who citedan aging infrastructure as the key barrier.

One of the recurring themes of theITS World Congress was that we’re on thecusp of an extraordinary revolution intransportation, one that may save govern-ment billions of dollars by facilitating farbetter utilization of existing transportationinfrastructure. v

44 GEORGIA EnGInEER

SAME Atlanta Post presented theSHARE Military Initiative at the Shep-herd Center with a donation for $28,000at our Shrimp Boil in September. The do-nation to the non-profit will help formerservice men and women recover fromPTSD and traumatic brain injuries.

The shrimp boil is our young mem-bers’ signature annual event and we arepleased that over 100 people came to Mon-day Night Brewing on September 23, 2014for a mini-tradeshow, networking, bar-beque, low-country boil and beer.

We were happy to host the newSAME Executive Director, Brig. Gen.Joseph ( Joe) Schroedel, PE, F.SAME,USN (Ret.) at our October luncheon.Schroedel discussed the future plans for thenational SAME organization and empha-sized that the organization will focus on allwork within the public sector, including thenation’s infrastructure and security.

Marvin Woodward, Deputy StateProperty Officer, Acting Deputy Directorwith GSFIC was our speaker at the No-vember luncheon and reviewed many ofthe on-going as well as upcoming projectsat the Capitol and throughout the state.

LTC John ( Jack) Seibert III USA(Ret.), PE, F.SAME received a specialhonor at the November luncheon. Re-gional Vice President (RVP) Capt. BillBersson USN (Ret.), PE, F.SAME pre-sented Jack with an RVP Medal for his

President

Pamela Little, PE, LEED AP

vice President

Beth Harris, CPSM

Past President

Ray Ramos, PE, RRC

Secretary

Sherri Smith, CPSM

Assistant Secretary

Beth Roby, RID, LEED AP

ID+C

Treasurer

Brian Dance, PE, SE

Assistant Treasurer

Ronnie Davis

Regional vP

Bill Bersson, PE, F.SAME

2013-2015 Directors

Howard Ayers

Phil McHugh, CP, CMS,

GISP

Steve Poole, PE

Cindy Miller, PE

2014-2016 Directors

Bob Marbury, PG

Candice Scale

Kaysie Glazer, PE

Ray Willcocks, PE, F.SAME

James Lucas

Emeritus chairs

Sy Liebman, PE (1994)

Jim Gilland, PE (1996)

Jack Newhard, PE (1997)

Roger Austin, PE (2000)

Jack Seibert, PE (2003)

Dick Scharf (2006)

Steve Premo (2009)

Scotti Bozeman, PE (2011)

Bill Bersson, PE (2011)

Ben Glover, PE (2012)

SAmE Atlanta News

dedication to and work on behalf of theExploring Engineering Academy. TheExploring Engineering Academy is a one-week overnight camp managed by the BoyScouts of America, Atlanta Area Councilthat introduces high-school age studentsto STEM subjects. Jack has been workingwith the program since its inception in theearly 2000’s.

SAME Atlanta Post was proud toaward $15,000 in GEF Scholarships thisyear. Stephen Todd, Ophelia Johnson,and Peter Emmanuel each received a$5,000 scholarship from the Atlanta Post.

Awards were made at the November 18GEF Banquet. An additional $5,500 wasawarded from other SAME Posts in Geor-gia. John Kaffezakis and Matthew Bectoneach received a $2,000 scholarship. RobertWainwright received a $1,500 scholarship.

Please join us on the second Tuesdayof any month (except May and September)at Dunwoody Country Club at 11:30 toenjoy our 2015 programming. We will beholding our annual golf tournament onMay 4, 2015 at St. Marlo Country Club.More details on the tournament will becoming soon!v

Pamela

Little, P.E.

President,

SAME Atlanta Post

SAME Regional Vice President for the South

Atlantic District, Capt. Bill Bersson USN (Ret.),

PE, F.SAME, presents LTC John (Jack) Seibert

III, USA (Ret.), PE, F.SAME with an RVP Medal

on November 11, 2014

April Hodge and Jen Fischer from the Shepherd

Center SHARE Military Initiative accepted a

$28,000 donation from SAME Atlanta Post pre-

sented by Beth Harris and Pamela Little (r-l).

Fall was a very busy season for WTS At-lanta. In September, WTS Atlanta hosteda Women’s Empowerment Breakfast,where 45 attendees got up early to comehear moderator, Malika Reed - Wilkins,and panelists Wendy Butler, Monica Glass-Thornton, and Sophia Duncan. All thosepresent at the breakfast enjoyed the topicand were enlightened by all the speakers.

At the end of October, WTS Atlantahosted another record breaking scholarshipluncheon program at the Georgia Aquar-ium. Over 360 industry professionals werein attendance and there was not one emptyseat in the house. The purpose for theluncheon was to celebrate another year ofsuccess and to recognize and honor thosewho have helped to make them happen.We also honored several leaders, both in-dividuals and organizations, who havemade marks in the transportation industryand who have lived our mission of advanc-ing women in transportation. But the mostimportant purpose of our luncheon was toaward scholarships to five well deservingyoung women.

We were very excited and honored tohave Ms. Michelle D. Livingstone with usdelivering the keynote speech. Ms. Liv-ingstone is Vice President – Transportationfor The Home Depot. She leads a highlytalented team that oversees the movementof all inbound and outbound shipmentsinto and within The Home Depot‘s multi-

channel supply chain, including imports,exports, and store deliveries. She came toHome Depot in 2007 with more than 25years of transportation supply chain expe-rience. Prior to joining The Home Depot,she served as the Senior Vice President ofTransportation for C & S Wholesale Gro-cers, Vice President of Transportation forJCPenney, and the Senior Director ofTransportation for Kraft Foods NorthAmerica.

The WTS mission of transformingthe transportation industry through the ad-vancement of women can be realized byencouraging students to further their ca-reers as leaders in the transportation in-dustry. WTS recognizes thattransportation is more than simply movingpeople and goods from one place to an-other. It is a driver of growth, and an inte-gral part of communities throughout theworld. The leadership, skills and perspec-tives of women are essential to ensure thatthe transportation systems of the future re-spond to the needs of all. WTS Atlanta,striving to advance women in transporta-tion, gave away five scholarships at theluncheon.

In memory of Helene M. Overly, thefirst Executive Secretary of WTS, thescholarship is awarded to women pursuinggraduate studies in transportation or a re-lated field. The Helene M. Overly Grad-uate scholarship, valued at $2,000, wasawarded to Atiyya Shaw, a first year grad-uate student in the School of Civil and En-vironmental Engineering at Georgia Tech.Her current research is focused on model-ing the visual search patterns of drivers incomplex roadway environments in an effortto inform and impact roadway design. Hergoal is to improve the overall safety andstability of transportation systems and in-frastructure through interdisciplinary ap-proaches to safety research.

Margaret-Avis Akofio-Sowah thenwon the other graduate scholarship, Lead-ership Legacy Scholarship. Through the

Leadership Legacy Scholarship, WTSseeks to motivate and reward women whodemonstrate leadership in the transporta-tion industry to bring ideas, innovation andnew approaches to transportation chal-lenges in the US and beyond. Margaret-Avis is a doctoral candidate in civilengineering at the Georgia Institute ofTechnology with a focus in transportationsystems engineering. Her interest in trans-portation stems from a desire to under-stand some of the flaws of thetransportation system in her home city ofAccra, in Ghana, and to investigate howtransportation improvements can be lever-aged for increased development and eco-nomic growth. Margaret’s current researchis in the area of transportation infrastruc-ture asset management and asset manage-ment implementation in transportationagencies, as it relates to strategic planningand policy. Outside her research, Margaret is passion-ate about actively encouraging female andminority participation in STEM fields,driven by her own experience as one of thefew females in her high school STEMcourses. She is actively involved in theGeorgia Tech Student Chapter of WTS,having previously served as President andVice-President, and is currently the Co-Chair of the WTS Atlanta TransportationYOU Program.

The Sharon D. Banks MemorialScholarship, awarded to women pursuingundergraduate studies in transportation ora related field, Kelly Smulovitz is a senior atGeorgia Tech majoring in Civil Engineer-ing. She is currently co-oping at JMT inBaltimore, Maryland in their bridge designgroup for 2 semesters and constructionmanagement department for 1 semester.Last summer, Kelly got the opportunity towork at GDOT in their research depart-ment.

Part of the WTS goal of fostering thedevelopment of women in the transporta-tion field can be realized by encouraging

45DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

Angela

Snyder, P.E.

President, WTS

Atlanta

WTS Atlanta News

46 GEORGIA EnGInEER

bright new professionals to undertake ca-reers in the area of transportation. TheMolitoris Leadership Scholarship isawarded to women pursuing undergradu-ate studies in transportation or a relatedfield that demonstrate leadership skills,ability, and interest, and that is why BrandieBanner was the recipient of this scholar-ship. In May of 2015, she will graduatefrom Georgia Tech with a Civil Engineer-ing degree and certificates in internationalaffairs and social psychology. During hertime at Tech, Brandie has served as studentbody vice president and as an executivemember of Tech's orientation program.This past summer, she was in Kenya im-plementing a sanitation project throughfunding from the Georgia Tech InventurePrize competition. Upon graduation, she isinterested in pursuing a career in publictransportation.

Five years ago, President Obama madea call to the science and engineering com-munity to come together to commit tohelping build the STEM program in theUS (Science Technology Engineering andMath) because he recognized the need forour economy to be competitive within theworld. Shortly thereafter, WTS Interna-tional was called to the table by the formerSecretary of the US DOT, Ray LaHood, tojoin together both of our organizations tocreate a program that specifically reachesyoung women to encourage them to enterSTEM fields. WTS International organ-ized volunteers eager to help with this ini-tiative at the chapter level, and that’s whenTransportation YOU was formed. WTSAtlanta’s Transportation YOU program iscurrently working with Grady High Schoolin Atlanta to foster a mentorship program.That is where WTS Atlanta met AnyaLomsadze, freshman. Anya is the daugh-ter of Russian immigrants and speaks flu-ent Russian; however, English is herfavorite subject. She is an avid singer in herchoir and is a violinist. Anya is an attorneyfor her mock trial team, a builder in robot-ics, and a delegate of Model UN. She com-petitively swims, runs, and plays tennis.Anya was very honored to have won theTransportation You $1,000 scholarship.

After the scholarships were awarded,

four awards were given out: DiversityAward, Employer of the Year, Member ofthe Year and Woman of the Year.

The Diversity Leadership Award wentto Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Au-thority (MARTA), Office of Diversity andEqual Opportunity (DEO), responsible forthe full array of Diversity and Inclusion(D&I) programs and activities forMARTA. They rank as the 9th largesttransit system in the United States, withover 500,000 trips each weekday.

Employer of the Year went to the StateRoad and Tollway Authority (SRTA), astate-level, independent Authority createdby the Georgia General Assembly to oper-ate tolled transportation facilities withinthe State and act as Georgia’s transporta-tion financing arm. As the only tolling en-tity for the State of Georgia, SRTA isinstrumental in developing ways to providemore reliable travel times for Georgia mo-torists. SRTA Executive Director Christo-pher Tomlinson was awarded the firstWTS Atlanta honorary membership forhis support and innovation in the trans-portation industry in the Atlanta MetroArea.

Member of the Year was awarded toTonya Saxon, MARTA. Serving in manydifferent roles including Vice President ofMembership and Vice President of Pro-grams, Tonya worked to increase the num-ber of members that had declined in theyears during the recession. She workedtirelessly to plan, prepare and execute veryexciting and worth-while programs for theAtlanta chapter. She was responsible forleading her committee, maintaining pro-gram budgets, organizing speakers, coordi-nating logistics, representing the chapter atthe events, and following up after events todebrief on lessons learned. Tonya is verypleasant, positive and encouraging ofeveryone. She is a hard worker and lovesto make all feel welcome and appreciated.

Woman of the Year went to RebeccaSerna, Atlanta Bicycle Coalition’s Execu-tive Director since 2007. She works withleaders, elected officials and citizens fromacross metro Atlanta to create a healthier,more livable Atlanta region by making itsafer, easier and more attractive to bicycle.

She accomplishes this through advocacyfor safe and connected networks of bike-ways, better conditions for bicyclists, edu-cating bicyclists and drivers on safety,providing resources to overcome barriers tobiking, promoting the bicycle as a viabletransportation solution, and organizingcommunity-building events. Her reputa-tion and credibility have not only been crit-ical for women, but also for the success ofABC as a whole.

For everyone who attended the lunch-eon and supported the scholarship fund bymaking silent auction and raffle item pur-chases, thank you.

To all of our Corporate Partners,thank you for your continued support ofour mission to advance women in trans-portation.

As my 2-year term as President is end-ing, I would like to take one final opportu-nity to thank all of the current boardmembers that I have been honored to servealongside for all of their hard work andleadership. And I am pleased to announcethe upcoming Board for the 2015-2016term that begins on January 1, 2015:Regan Hammond, ARCADIS - PresidentOlivia Russell, SRTA – Vice President ofProgramsbeth Ann Schwartz, Michael BakerInternational – Vice President ofMembershipJennifer Lott, T.Y. Lin International -SecretaryKirsten berry, HNTB – TreasurerDirectors-at-Large: marissa martin,Wolverton & AssociatesTonya Saxon, MARTAHelen mcSwain, Atkinsmalika Reed-Wilkins – SRTA

Finally, thank you for allowing me the op-portunity to serve as President. v

47DEcEmbER 2014 | JAnuARy 2015

http://www.haywardbaker.com