Environmental Engineering

Download Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery by John B. Miller PDF

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 structures IDS-98-I-201 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 heritage OF the toilet F. KENNEDY foreign AIRPORT . . . . . . . . . . 34 prior PLANS FOR overseas ARRIVALS construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 background 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 strategy - 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 technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 positive factors of AB 680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifty four THE background of personal TOLL ROADS within the usa . . . . . . . . fifty five CAL TRANS' PRE-QUALIFICATION approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 limited-access highway . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Consortium contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 VB Contents THE PROPOSED improvement FRANCHISE contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sixty one FINANCING package deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sixty three MATT MOORE'S projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sixty three QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sixty seven REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sixty nine NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 CHAPTERS SANTA ANA VIADUCT exhibit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy one INFRASTRUCTURE improvement platforms IDS-97 -T -011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy one the matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy one Salient gains of AB 680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . seventy two CALTRANS' PRE-QUALIFICATION approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Show description

Read or Download Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery PDF

Best environmental engineering books

Packed towers : in processing and environmental technology

The emerging development in the direction of the operation of packed towers in separation methods used to be initiated after the strength predicament within the seventies. This publication is the 1st of its sort which treats the entire vital theoretical and sensible points for the calculation, layout and operation of those packed towers.

Anaerobic Digestion Processes in Industrial Wastewater Treatment

There were many major microbiological, biochemical and technological advances made within the figuring out and implementation of anaerobic digestion procedures with appreciate to commercial and family wastewater remedy. Elucida­ tion of the mechanisms of anaerobic degradation has authorised a better keep an eye on over the organic parameters of waste conversion and the technical advances accomplished have decreased the time and land zone necessities and elevated the cost-effectiveness and potency of a number of the approaches shortly in use.

Airport Systems: Planning, Design and Management 2/E

The main sensible, entire consultant TO THE making plans, layout, AND administration OF AIRPORTS--UPDATED through top pros "With the speeded up expense of swap happening during the aviation undefined, this variation is a well timed and extremely potent source for making sure either airport execs and people attracted to airports gather a complete knowing of the alterations occurring, and the way they influence airports and the groups they serve.

Standardized Hierarchical Vegetation Classification : Mexican and Global Patterns

This booklet outlines the transitions among cultured and common land cover/vegetation varieties and their implications within the look for possible choices to opposite the rage of anthropogenic environmental degradation. It additionally elaborates at the proposed “standardized hierarchical Mexican plants class process” and geobotanical mapping, a serious transversal environmental factor.

Extra info for Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery

Example text

Earlier Plans for International Arrivals Building A decade ago, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PA) almost committed to erect a brand-new lAB, one inspired by Grand Central Chapter 3 JFK IAB 35 Railroad Station in Mid-Town. Features of the proposed new IAB included a 1I5-foot-high, domed, skylight-studded hall. " The proposal went nowhere. The economy soured, some key airlines went bankrupt, and political support evaporated. The PA officially pulled the plug on the idea in 1990. History of the Port Authority The PA was established in 1921 by agreement between the states of New York and New Jersey, with the mission of promoting commerce in the bistate port district.

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. That district was made possible by the Bridge and Highway District Act of California, May 25, 1923. That provisional permit eventually saved the project in 1930, when final approval was sought before General Lytle Brown, who opposed the bridge but could not rescind the provisional permit presumably because to do so would dishonor General Deakyne's judgment (Report of the Chief Engineer, l B.

As the new project took shape, the Schipol team would demolish the old structure, and then operate, maintain, and finance the new facility over a twenty-five year concession period. Five years of hard work was over. But ..... seeds of doubt remained as to several of the critical financial decisions. As she tried to sleep, her mind inevitably reviewed the project from the very beginning. J. B. Miller, Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery © The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2002 34 Case Studies in Infrastructure Delivery History of the John F.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.79 of 5 – based on 7 votes