President’s Riverside County - Orange County Message Major .

WesterniteNovember-December 2006Design/Build — Making It WorkThrough a detailed prequalification andbid approach (including a best and finaloffer), the joint venture of Granite-MeyersRados (GMR) was selected to be thecontractor. Work was initiated in September the consultant or the owner prepares2004 and is to be substantially complete byplans, specifications and an estimate;November 2006. The total work effort cost the project is bid;approximately 550million. the project is typically awarded to thePart of this work will involve the designlowest bidder; and the project is built with consultant and/ and implementation of an IntelligentTransportation System (ITS) on SR 22 thator owner oversight.will be connected to the Caltrans District 12Transportation Management Center. TheOver the last few years, however, therefollowing sections provide an overview ofhas been a shift, particularly in majorprojects, to the design/build scenario where a some of the issues on this project.single contract is let that encompasses bothLESSONS LEARNED AND APPLIEDdesign and construction. One recent projectPre-Award Efforthas been on State Route 22 in OrangeOne of the most significant tasks in theCounty, California. This project had severalunique circumstances which set it apart from design/build process is the level of effortother design/build projects. It also has many required by all parties in preparing andreviewing a bid. From the contractor’s side,similarities to other design/build projects.he is typically given a set of plans at the 30%This paper will discuss this project and itslevel. This is insufficient for a contractor toapplicability to other projects.develop a bid with any confidence. Thedesign had to further develop these plans inBACKGROUNDthe prebid stage to allow GMR to developWith respect to State Route 22 inOrange County, California, the Metropolitan their bid. This involved developing moredetailed ITS plans at the same time thatPlanning Organization for the area, Orangealternative roadway plans/drainage plans/County Transportation Authority (OCTA),bridge plans were being prepared. A greatand the State of California Department ofdeal of coordination was required to ensureTransportation (Caltrans) are committed tothe ITS components were being designeddeveloping effective regional transportationwith the latest base map. Alternatives weresolutions that minimize impacts to localcommunities, including the study of ways to also proposed.As part of the bid process, GMR wasease traffic congestion on SR-22. SR-22 isdirectedto submit a best and final offer. Thisunique in that it crosses most of the majornorth/ south freeways and arterial corridors involved going back over the ITS design andfurther detailing what it really needed asin central Orange County and consequentlyhas become a vital east-west link in providing opposed to what was desired. This wasmobility to residents, employees and visitors. particularly true for traffic signals where theTechnical Provisions required “upgrading” ofSR-22 is one of Orange County’s olderall components regardless of their currentfreeway facilities and it is in need of laneage/status.capacity enhancements, roadwayThere are several lessons here. One isimprovements, Intelligent Transportationthat all parties, the contractor and the owner,Systems (ITS) element enhancements andshould not underestimate the level of effortstructural retrofit of its bridges. Due toincreased population and travel, SR-22 does involved in preparing and reviewing a bid.Hence, the owner should not request morenot have the sufficient capacity to handledocumentation and meetings than arecurrent and future traffic demands.However, being a state route, it is under considered necessary. This in turn willrequire a well written specification.the control and ownership of Caltrans.Additionally, the owner needs to be flexibleCaltrans did not have the funds to completein reviewing alternatives due to the everthe necessary improvements. As a result, inchanging technologies and the potential to2001 OCTA proposed to act as thecontracting agency for the improvement and save money both by the owner and thecontractor.approved proceeding with the design-buildPartnershipapproach.One of the unique attributes of a design/build project is that the specifications andHistorically in the United States, designand construction of public works facilitieshave followed a rather fixed format:Page 4www.w esternite.orgplans are rarely complete to the extent theywould normally be if a project were being bidin the typical low bid environment. As notedabove and is true with most design/buildprojects, SR-22 had a bid set that was only ata 30% level. Some leeway was thereforegranted to the design/build contracting teamto meet the performance requirements and/or the intent of the Technical Provisions andplans. In that it is not always clear whether aproposed design or implementationcompletely meets the specifications, it isnecessary that the designers, the fieldcontractor and the owner be flexible in theirinterpretations of the plans/specifications ifthe project is to proceed. This results in theforming of a partnership, either officially orunofficially.In addition, with the owner (Caltrans)not being the contracting party, there was thepotential for conflicts to arise between whatCaltrans desired, what OCTA was willing tofund and what GMR was willing to provideper their bid. Additionally, the BAFO had alower order of precedence than the TechnicalProvisions with some saying GMR should beheld to the original Technical Provisions andat the BAFO bid price. This resulted inseveral discussions where agreements werereached that were acceptable to all parties.The lessons learned here are that evenunder difficult working conditions, it ispossible to reach agreements that areacceptable to all parties. Everyone had avested interest in having this project besuccessful so it was in their best interests towork towards this common goal. Anotherlesson learned was that partnering is verydependent on personal relationships. It isnecessary to develop individual trust betweenone another to allow the respective parties tochampion the various views within theirorganizations.Design DetailsOn the SR-22 project, the TechnicalProvisions were both functional andperformance related. In addition, theyreferenced a large number of otherdocuments. It would have been physicallyimpossible for the GMR team to havereviewed all these documents prior to bidtime. Hence, the bid was developed based onan “educated guess” scenario. In addition,once the design work started, GMR wasasked several times to modify the ITS plansto bring them in line with local “agencypolicies”, most of which were unwritten. Asa result, there was the potential for GMR tohave to supply an ITS that was well beyond(Continued on page 5)

WesterniteNovember-December 2006(Continued from page 4)what was actually bid. Again, this is wherepartnering came in. All parties were placed ina position that they had to be somewhatflexible in order for the project to moveforward. This involved a great deal of giveand take so that additional costs were held toa minimum and the local agencies received aproduct they could accept.The lesson learned here is that theTechnical Provisions need to be clear andsuccinct. Adding requirements (particularlyreferencing documents not provided as partof the bid package) will not only result in apotentially higher bid but could lead todisagreements following bid award. Theother lesson learned is that policies need to bein writing and included as part of the bidpackage. Lastly, this was another example ofwhere partnering does work when all partiesare willing to seek agreement.ConclusionThe SR-22 project involvedseveral challenges, not the least ofwhich was the contracting relationshipand institutional issues. However,partnering between all parties resultedin the project being able to moveforward and be completed.About the Author:Syd Bowcott, PE, TE, hasmore than 35 years ofexperience in transportationengineering, most notably inITS. He has worked in boththe public and private sector.He is currently a SeniorSyd BowcottProject Manager/VicePresident with URSCorporation. Syd received his Bachelor's andMaster's degrees from the University of California,Berkeley. He is a member of ITE, ITS Californiaand ASCE. Syd has served in many positions inlocal sections and is a frequent presenter at ITE andITSA.Prepare. Evaluate. Innovate. Sustain.Planning for the 2007 District 6 meeting in Portland, Oregon is underway and on behalf of theLocal Arrangements Committee, I invite you to visit our wonderful community. Portland is knownfor its excellent transit and expansive bike-friendly paths that have earned Portland, Oregon, thedistinction of being named Bicycling magazine’s No. 1 cycling city in America for several years.Our meeting will feature several transportation tours that are one of a kind experiences. As the BestCycling City in America, we're planning a bike tour of Portland’s waterfront path system. On thetour, you can learn first hand how our communities have fostered bike programs and developedinnovativetreatments such as a bike only traffic signal and otherunique applications. The Portland meeting will alsofeature technical tours of the Portland Streetcar, thelight rail system, and Portland's new Aerial Tramwayproject. There's a lot more that is being planned andmore information will come shortly in theNewsletter.Peter Koonce, General ChairThe website is now up and running. Abstracts maysubmitted through www.oregonite.org. The deadlinefor submittal is December 15th. Questions may bedirected to Massoud Saberian, Technical Chair, atmsaberian@ci.oswego.or.us.www.w esternite.orgPage 5

WesterniteNovember-December 2006Section and Chapter ActivitiesCentralCaliforniaSectionOctober 18, 2006Our Central California Sectionquarterly meeting was held October 18,2006 at Grand Occasions in Fresno. Themeeting was sponsored by PrismEngineering. More that 55 members andguests attended.Business MeetingOur new section president Gary Millsstarted the meeting with a short businessreport.Technical SessionOur technical session was sponsoredby Grant Johnson and Prism Engineeringwho also provided the raffle prize.www.prismworld.comGrant Johnson’s presentation was on“Roundabouts, a Traffic OperationsPerspective”. Modern Roundabouts aremore than a traffic calming tool.Sometimes they are a better solution than atraffic signal, from a traffic operationsstandpoint, or from a capacity standpoint.Traffic signals sometimes depend on thetraffic operations of adjacent intersections,and a system of signals is necessary forproper flow of traffic. A modernroundabout on the other hand cansometimes operate as a governing meter tonegative traffic flow impacts, and provideneeded capacity improvements at the sametime. PRISM Engineering conductedseveral traffic operations studies, with thebuilding of various micro-simulationmodels in relation to the installation of amodern roundabout at the busiestintersection in the City of Grass Valley,and on one of Caltrans' most challengingon-ramp systems (300 foot weave at base ofcurve and steep grade) on the GoldenCenter Freeway. The modern roundaboutmitigation was the only solution thatCaltrans would accept short of a newinterchange.Grant Johnson began preparing trafficengineering studies and signal designs in1984. In 1994 he founded SPECTRUMEngineering, which has grown into PRISMEngineering, and has been active in manycities and counties in Northern Californiaproviding on-call traffic engineeringPage 6services to San Joaquin, El Dorado andNevada County. He is a registered TrafficEngineer, has 22 years of experience assuch, and was also one of the firstrecipients of the national title ofProfessional Traffic Operations Engineer,or PTOE. He has been involved innumerous traffic operations studies, and isknowledgeable in the use of technicalsoftware applications relating to microsimulation.RaffleLaVerne Bitner was the winner of theportable DVD player donated by GrantJohnson and Prism Engineering.Future MeetingsJanuary 17, 2006 - VisaliaNazir Lalani—Tort Liability: The PublicAgency Perspective, and Tort Liability:The Civil Engineer's Role as a Witness.Mike Bitner,Past PresidentSan FranciscoBay Area ITE/SBTOADevelopment Manager for the City ofWalnut Creek.Ms. Knepper presented the MTC’sSmart Growth Parking Policy Study whichthey are currently conducting. The studyincludes eight case studies of the parkingpolicies of several Bay Area municipalitiesof all sizes as well as a series of BestPractices and suggestions for policies andprograms that would be possible toimplement in other locales. MichaelVecchio and Dan Zack presented theparking policies for Walnut Creek andRedwood City respectively. Theyexplained the permit, pricing and timingpolicies of parking in their cities and howthey had come to adopt them. Dan Zackalso demonstrated a series of progressivepolicies that Redwood City hadimplemented with inspiration from thework of Donald Shoup, Professor of UrbanPlanning at UCLA. These policies wereimplemented with input from thecommunity to help spur economicdevelopment and to provide funds forimproving the business district.For detailed PowerPoint presentationsof the meeting, please visit http://www.sfbayite.org/.Toshi Shepard-Ohta, Allen Huang,Co-ScribeCo-ScribeOctober 2006The October meeting was held on the19th at the Gordon Biersch Brewery onThe Embarcadero in San Francisco andover 50 members were able to attend theevent. The topic of the luncheon was“Downtown Parking Innovations:Avoiding the High Costs of Free Parking.”Three speakers were invited to present onthe subject: Ms. Valerie Knepper of theMetropolitan Transportation Commission;Mr. Michael Vecchio, the TransportationSpecialist from the City of Walnut Creek;and Mr. Dan Zack, the Downtownwww.w esternite.org

WesterniteNovember-December 2006Grandfather of the Interstate SystemDwight Eisenhower is known as theFather of the Interstate System because hemoved the system from concept to pavement.Similarly, the title of Grandfather of the Interstate System should belong to none otherthan Thomas Jefferson. It was Jefferson who,in 1806, signed the legislation authorizingconstruction of the nation’s first federallyfunded interstate highway.When Jefferson assumed the Presidencyin 1801, the fledgling United States faced asignificant geographical challenge. The futurestates of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,and Wisconsin were being formed out of the260,000-square-mile Northwest Territory,which was separated from the eastern statesby the Appalachian Mountains. Easternerswanted easier access to plentiful westernland, including both the Northwest Territoryand, after 1803, the Louisiana Purchase. Onthe other hand, recalcitrant westerners distrusted the federal government and disdainedits authority. Jefferson agreed, especially inthe wake of the Whiskey Rebellion, withGeorge Washington’s opinion that improvedtransportation would decrease the isolationof the westerners and improve national unity.Jefferson’s Treasury Secretary, a surveyor named Albert Gallatin, devised a planto unite the two disparate parts of the nation.At Gallatin’s urging, the Ohio statehood actpassed by Congress in 1802 provided for construction of a road connecting the new statewith the Eastern seaboard. The act authorized the federal government to pay for theroad from a fund created by reserving 2 percent of the proceeds from selling public landlocated in Ohio. Four years later, Congresspassed legislation that furthered Gallatin’splan by authorizing construction of a“National Road” that would reach from theOhio River to Cumberland, Maryland, whereit would connect with an existing road leading to Baltimore. By signing this legislation,Jefferson paved the way for federal involvement in the construction of interstate roads.This project was a monumental undertaking for the young republic. Constructionof the 131-mile road from Cumberland toWheeling, West Virginia, took seven years tocomplete. It cost 1.75 million — more thandouble the original estimate of 6,000 permile. The cost would have been even higher,but much of the right-of-way was donated bylandowners anxious to have their propertyserved by the new road.The National Road, also known as theCumberland Road, used the best technologyavailable and was designed for efficienttravel. Although the road crossed the Appalachian Mountain range, the grade was limitedto a maximum of 5 degrees (8.75 percent).The roadway consisted of a traffic-bearingstructure with what amounted to 6-foot-wideshoulders with a finished surface.Construction began by clearing the 66foot-wide right-of-way of obstacles such astrees and rocks. To prepare the travel“lanes,” workers then hand dug a 20-footwide trench down the center of the right-ofway. Using round-headed iron hammers,workers broke rocks and sorted them by passing them through 7-inch and 3-inch rings. Alayer of the larger stones was placed first andthen topped with a layer of the smaller ones.Together, the two layers filled the 12-inchdeep trench, and a crown was created bypiling the stones to a depth of 18 inches at theroadway center. The rock base was coveredwith gravel or sand and compacted with a 3ton roller.By the time the road reached Wheelingin 1818, plans called for extension of theroute through Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois —all the way to St. Louis. That would bring itsoverall length to 812 miles. Even as preparations for the extension proceeded, repairwork began on the original road, as heavyuse by horses, herds, covered wagons, andstagecoaches had caused deterioration. Bythe late 1820s, the McAdam process wasbeing used for repairs and construction.During the original construction, stonemile markers were placed along the southside of the road at 5-mile intervals. In 1835,the stone markers were replaced with castiron obelisks placed 1 mile apart. With a levelof detail unlikely to be seen today, eachmarker displayed the distances to Wheeling,Cumberland, and the nearest town. At thatsame time, the federal government chose toturn over responsibility for the road to thestates through which it passed, allowing themto finance repairs by collecting tolls (givingrise to the route being called the National orCumberland Pike).The National Road became the primarycorridor for interstate travel, commerce, andmail delivery (including the Pony Express).Inns and taverns sprouted along its route,and nearby towns thrived because of the access. Its occasional title of the “Road thatBuilt the Nation” attests to its success in unifying the established East and the developingWest. When the Federal-Aid Highway System was defined in the 1920s, the road wasabsorbed as part of US 40. After the modernInterstate system was launched in 1956, I-68and I-70 offered limited-access, high-speedalternatives to long-distance travelers.www.w esternite.orgThe Adobe TowerAbout the Authors:Jerry Hall, a professor of CivilEngineering at the University of NewMexico, has served District 6 as presidentand international director.Loretta Hall, a member of theSociety for Technical Communicationand the Construction Writers Association,is a freelance writer concentrating onengineering and construction.They can be contacted atjerome@unm.edu y.Editors NoteAt the Annual Meeting in Hawaii, Dr. JerryHall presented a paper on the history of theinterstate system in honor of its 50thanniversary. This article is the first in a seriesexpanding on that paper. WesternITE isproud to present our readers with thisinvaluable story of the building of ourtransportation system.Page 7

WesterniteNovember-December 2006All Aboard the Ski Train!District 6 NominationsThe Colorado-WyomingSection invites you and yourfamily to join us on Saturday,January 27th, 2007 for our 5thannual winter party t

With respect to State Route 22 in Orange County, California, the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the area, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are committed to developing effective regiona