Environmental Engineering

Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery by John B. Miller

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 overseas ARRIVALS development AT JOHN F. KENNEDY overseas AIRPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 INFRASTRUCTURE improvement structures IDS-98-I-201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 heritage OF the toilet F. KENNEDY foreign AIRPORT . . . . . . . . . . 34 previous PLANS FOR overseas ARRIVALS development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 historical past OF THE PORT AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 NEW PLANS FOR foreign ARRIVALS construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 TERMINAL ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . three 7 FEASIBILITY research OF THE lAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 initial layout -1993 TO 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . forty THE PRE-QUALIFICATION AND BIDDING method - 1995 TO 1997 . . . . . . forty-one manhattan LAND rent challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . forty five CONSORTIUM participants _ JFK overseas AIR TERMINAL LLC forty five THE AMSTERDAM AIRPORT version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . forty six FINANCING process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . forty seven remaining 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 good points of AB 680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty four THE historical past of non-public TOLL ROADS within the usa . . . . . . . . fifty five CAL TRANS' PRE-QUALIFICATION procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty six the decision FOR aggressive CONCEPTUAL PROPOSALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty seven THE PROPOSALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty eight short heritage OF SR ninety one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty nine KEY positive aspects OF THE PROPOSED SR ninety one TOLL parkway . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 convey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy one INFRASTRUCTURE improvement structures IDS-97 -T -011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy one the matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy one Salient gains of AB 680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy two CALTRANS' PRE-QUALIFICATION technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Show description

Read Online or Download Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery PDF

Best environmental engineering books

Green Chemistry and Engineering

Chemical procedures supply a various array of useful items and fabrics utilized in purposes starting from well-being care to transportation and nutrition processing. but those comparable chemical methods that offer items and fabrics necessary to sleek economies, additionally generate colossal amounts of wastes and emissions.

Tribology of Natural Fiber Polymer Composites (Woodhead Publishing in Materials)

Environmental issues force the call for for bio-degradable fabrics equivalent to plant-based typical fiber strengthened polymer composites. those composites are speedy exchanging traditional fabrics in lots of functions, particularly in autos, the place tribology (friction, lubrication, and put on) is necessary.

Oxygenates in Gasoline: Environmental Aspects

This article offers the newest details on cellular, recalcitrant compounds in gas and the newly rising compounds being constructed to be used in gas and different vehicular fuels. using a few of these compounds has resulted from environmental rules specifying the addition of oxygenates to gas and papers during this quantity think of the chemical, geochemical, hydrogeological, and atmospheric habit of oxygenates.

Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology

How will we layout extra sustainable business and concrete platforms that decrease environmental affects whereas assisting a top quality of lifestyles for everybody? What growth has been made in the direction of decreasing source use and waste, and what are the customers for extra resilient, material-efficient economies? What are the environmental and social affects of world provide chains and the way can they be measured and more suitable?

Additional info for Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery

Sample text

The application was filed by the "Bridging the Golden Gate Association" and representatives from San Francisco and Marin Counties before the group had official authority to build the bridge. 5 Based on Deakyne's favorable report, the Secretary of War, Weeks, issued a provisional pennit in December 1924 to proceed with the bridge, pending submission of detailed plans. 6 The Formation of the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation Authority The Bridge and Highway District Act created the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation Authority (the "Authority"), authorized multiple counties on both sides of the Golden Gate to vote to allow the District to borrow money secured by taxes on private property in the supporting counties.

A delay in construction completion of 2 years (at the same total cost). d. An increase in the total construction price of 10% (allotted in the same proportions as your base case from Question 1). e. A 25% increase in the planned toll rates. f. A 50% increase in the planned toll rates. 3. Answer the Following Questions. a. What was the project delivery method for the Golden Gate Bridge? Did the Counties "outsource" the project's cash flow (sources and uses) to an independent entity? Why? Is the Authority a public entity?

12 Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery Assumptions used in any financial forecast are just that. Question 2 tests the sensitivity of the NPV you calculated in Question 1. Compute the NPV of the cash flow for each of the following cases, and compare it to the base case you calculated in Question 1. a. A 10% increase in toll paying vehicles across the entire cash flow. b. A 10% decrease in toll paying vehicles across the entire cash flow. c. A delay in construction completion of 2 years (at the same total cost).

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.42 of 5 – based on 35 votes