By John B. Miller

BACKGROUND OF THE undertaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sixteen FINANCING THE undertaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 supply OF THE DULLES GREENWAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 working effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 CONCLUDING NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 bankruptcy three foreign ARRIVALS development AT JOHN F. KENNEDY overseas AIRPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 INFRASTRUCTURE improvement platforms IDS-98-I-201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 advent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 historical past OF the toilet F. KENNEDY foreign AIRPORT . . . . . . . . . . 34 prior PLANS FOR overseas ARRIVALS construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 heritage OF THE PORT AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 NEW PLANS FOR overseas ARRIVALS construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 TERMINAL ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . three 7 FEASIBILITY research OF THE lAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 initial layout -1993 TO 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . forty THE PRE-QUALIFICATION AND BIDDING procedure - 1995 TO 1997 . . . . . . forty-one manhattan LAND hire challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . forty five CONSORTIUM individuals _ JFK foreign AIR TERMINAL LLC forty five THE AMSTERDAM AIRPORT version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . forty six FINANCING procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . forty seven last THE DEAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . forty eight QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . forty nine bankruptcy four THE SR ninety one show LANES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty three INFRASTRUCTURE improvement platforms IDS-97-T-012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty three the matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty three Key gains of AB 680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty four THE background of personal TOLL ROADS within the usa . . . . . . . . fifty five CAL TRANS' PRE-QUALIFICATION strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty six the decision FOR aggressive CONCEPTUAL PROPOSALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty seven THE PROPOSALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty eight short heritage OF SR ninety one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty nine KEY gains OF THE PROPOSED SR ninety one TOLL throughway . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Consortium individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 VB Contents THE PROPOSED improvement FRANCHISE contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sixty one FINANCING package deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sixty three MATT MOORE'S initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sixty three QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sixty seven REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sixty nine NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 CHAPTERS SANTA ANA VIADUCT show . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy one INFRASTRUCTURE improvement platforms IDS-97 -T -011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy one the matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy one Salient positive factors of AB 680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy two CALTRANS' PRE-QUALIFICATION method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Show description

Read Online or Download Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery PDF

Best environmental engineering books

Comparative Evaluations of Innovative Fisheries Management: Global Experiences and European Prospects

The Comparative reviews of cutting edge options in ecu Fisheries administration (CEVIS) venture (2006 - 2009) used to be an exploration of the way technology can relief coverage judgements. CEVIS teamed up biologists, economists, and different social scientists to guage 4 fisheries administration techniques being thought of for Europe: participatory techniques; rights-based regimes; attempt keep an eye on; and decision-rule platforms.

Process Intensification for Green Chemistry: Engineering Solutions for Sustainable Chemical Processing

The profitable implementation of greener chemical procedures is predicated not just at the improvement of extra effective catalysts for artificial chemistry but in addition, and as importantly, at the improvement of reactor and separation applied sciences that could convey more advantageous processing functionality in a secure, not pricey and effort effective demeanour.

Marine Bioenergy : Trends and Developments

Marine Bioenergy: traits and advancements good points the newest findings of major scientists from around the globe. Addressing the main elements of marine bioenergy, this cutting-edge text:Offers an advent to marine bioenergyExplores marine algae as a resource of bioenergyDescribes biotechnological concepts for biofuel productionExplains the construction of bioenergy, together with bioethanol, biomethane, biomethanol, biohydrogen, and biodiesel Covers bioelectricity and marine microbial gas mobile (MFC) construction from marine algae and microbesDiscusses marine waste for bioenergyConsiders com.

Ground Gas Handbook

AnnotationThis instruction manual offers useful assistance on assessing floor fuel hazard and the layout of acceptable safeguard measures. It discusses the review of floor fuel for half II A websites and likewise contains details at the evaluation of vapours. It offers details on fuel new release and the research of gasoline flows within the floor, together with the layout of fuel safety structures.

Additional info for Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery

Example text

A 4% per year growth in traffic in years 14 through 22, with a maximum capacity at 132,400 in years 23 through 43. Chapter 2 Dulles Greenway 21 2. An 8% average discount rate. 3. 5% per year. 4. O&M expenses (including, without limitation, resurfacing, police enforcement, and toll collection) of $7,000,000 in year one, escalating at 5% per year. 5. A Fixed Annual Lease Payment by TRIP II of $500,000 to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, beginning in the year the road opens. 6. Phase 2 and Phase 3 Improvements to the road of $20 million and $40 million respectively in years 13 and 23.

The IAB was functionally obsolete. Everything in the airline business had changed dramatically -- the IAB had evolved, but not near enough. Space usage, waiting areas, service areas, security areas, and commercial areas simply had not adapted to 35 years of changes in how 36 Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery passengers use and move through airport terminals. While the structural systems were sound and clean, the numerous deficiencies were readily apparent. An assessment of the IAB terminal in relation to international terminal (lATA) criteria and standards, listed the following faults (from the Request for Proposal): • Disorientation due to building layout and environment • Long passenger processing times • Long walking distances • Inefficient handling meeters/greeters • Overcrowding at peak travel times • Circuitous circulation • Multiple security points • Poorly located retail • Limited gate flexibility • Demand greater than capacity • The 1957 Air Handling Units (AHUs) are in poor condition and the 1970 AHUs are also in deteriorated condition.

1928 - 1937. Strauss, J. and C. Paine. The Golden Gate Bridge: Report of the Chief Engineer to the Board of Directors of the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, California. San Francisco, CA: Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, 1938. Notes I Report of the Chief Engineer, J. B. Strauss, p. 25 2 Report of the Chief Engineer, J. B. Strauss, p. 27 3 Spanning the Gate, S. Cassady, p. 43 4 Report ofthe Chief Engineer, J. B. Strauss, p. 27 Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery 14 5 The group that applied to Colonel Deakyne did so based on the supposition that an official district would be formed to administer and finance the bridge.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.65 of 5 – based on 35 votes