1. Water Quality: Any development which constructs new or replacement of more than 5,000 square feet of impervious area is required to provide  water quality treatment. The idea behind water quality treatment is to provide removal of suspended solids in stormwater in the most common storm events.
2. Channel Protection: Also known as the 1-year storm, this requires the development to detain the 1-year storm for a period of 24 hours to avoid the scouring and degradation of stream channels.
3. Detention: This requires the development to detain stormwater for the 2- through 25-year storm events to their pre-development flows.

Redevelopment projects present several unique challenges and opportunities. Among the most challenging hurdles that many redevelopment projects face is that of stormwater management – both water quality and water quantity (detention). Typically older developments, if they have any stormwater treatment at all, have an undersized facility that provides detention only. Current regulations in Gwinnett County, and across most of the metro Atlanta area, require those redeveloping parcels to provide the same level of stormwater management as is required for a greenfield development. In other words, the site, even if it is covered with buildings and parking lots, is viewed as though it is still in a forested, undisturbed state for stormwater management purposes. Gwinnett County, recognizing that redevelopment provides both economic and environmental advantages over greenfield development, is making development regulation changes to distinguish stormwater regulations between redevelopment and greenfield development.

Greenfield developments will continue to have to provide all three components of a stormwater facility (see table). A greenfield development is property still in an undeveloped state and has not had any impact on downstream properties.

Redevelopment projects, on the other hand, have impacted downstream properties as much as they likely can. Fully atoning for the sins of the past by providing the full host of stormwater management, while a noble idea, is not realistic on many projects. Redevelopment projects will have the opportunity to apply for a variance from providing channel protection and/or detention. Developed parcels, particularly those which are candidates for redevelopment, have already impacted their downstream channels. Providing channel protection won’t accomplish its intended purpose. Providing detention in an already urbanized zone only makes sense if there is existing flooding downstream during the more typical storm events. Otherwise it, too, doesn’t accomplish its intended purpose.

All projects will have to provide water quality, as required by state law. This makes sense, as water quality is an on-going impact in both greenfield development and existing developments. Unlike channel protection, stormwater runoff doesn’t reach a peak pollution point and then find a new stability or gradually reduce. Providing a measure of water quality on every project is the prudent thing to do, even if state law didn’t make it so.

This change to the Development Regulations will provide a significant new tool to redevelopment projects by addressing one of the most expensive and difficult challenges that a project faces. The variance, if approved, would allow a project to waive either all or a portion of channel protection and/or detention requirements. Once a variance is approved, the developer would pay a fee to Gwinnett County that would be utilized in the same fashion as fees from the County’s stream buffer variance. These fees are used in stream restoration projects throughout Gwinnett County. The fee will be calculated on the volume of stormwater management that is waived. (i.e. if 10,000 cubic feet of stormwater management is waived, multiply the 10,000 cubic feet by the cost per cubic foot to determine the fee amount.) The fee amount is currently under consideration and will eventually be set by the Board of Commissioners.

Gwinnett Village Community Improvement District and Gwinnett Place Community Improvement District conducted three case studies to assess the impact of the new regulations on sample redevelopment projects. In those cases, it was assumed that a variance would be sought for both the entirety of channel protection and detention. It was also assumed that the impervious area in the redevelopment scenario would be equal to its present condition. Two of the three cases were conducted on project sizes where many redevelopment projects are anticipated – sites in the half acre range. Typically, smaller redevelopment sites provide the most challenges for providing stormwater management due to the lack of land necessary to provide all three stormwater components. In most cases, stormwater management will be provided in an underground facility. These facilities can only be placed under parking lots or open space and reduce the buildable area on a site.

The variance can only be obtained for up to the existing impervious area on the project site. If a developer proposes to increase the impervious area beyond what presently exists, the developer will be responsible for providing all three stormwater components for the increased area. The developer will not be able to obtain a variance from the stormwater regulations for the increased impervious area and must maintain or improve the existing downstream conditions. The developer can still apply for a variance for the portion of the project up to the existing impervious area.

It is important to point out that these regulations only apply to the unincorporated portion of Gwinnett County. Projects within the cities located in Gwinnett County, should they chose to also follow this process, will have to adopt the changes into their development regulations. Since the cities represent some of the most urbanized portions of Gwinnett County, these regulation changes, if adopted, would enhance the ability for revitalization within their boundaries.

The bottom line is that these changes will provide a new tool for developers to add to their tool box to satisfy stormwater management requirements for redevelopment projects. This new tool will allow Gwinnett County to provide a significant advantage to developers looking to do redevelopment projects in the metro Atlanta area. At the same time, it will improve the environment by providing an additional funding source for improving the streams throughout the county. Of course, redevelopment projects themselves provide other significant environmental advantages over greenfield development by utilizing existing infrastructure and reducing consumption of undeveloped property.  Finally, it supports the significant economic impact that redevelopment projects provide by revitalizing the aging areas of the county while increasing employment and property values. This is one of those rare situations when new government regulations provide a win-win scenario for all involved. Gwinnett County should be applauded for its forward thinking and proactive efforts to address one of the biggest challenges that many projects face.

Taylor Anderson, PE, is President of Blue Landworks LLC. Blue Landworks provides civil engineering, land surveying and development consulting across the southeast. Taylor is the chairman of the committee assisting Gwinnett County in re-writing their development regulations on stormwater for redevelopment projects. The opinions expressed in this article are his and are not intended to represent those of Gwinnett County or the committee. A version of this article appeared on the Gwinnett Chamber’s Redevelopment Newsletter Website.

That this is even an issue, despite the fact that the drainage basin of Lake Lanier is minuscule in comparison to the the total drainage basin at either the Alabama or Florida border, is stupefying.

As an side, Lake Lanier is getting closer and closer to full pool. Earlier this year, a state climatologist predicted that Lanier would reach full pool after a dry late summer and fall and wet winter due to the effects of El Nino. Obviously that prediction didn’t include the previous week’s rains which has moved the lake to within 3 feet of full pool this morning.

The rains dropped 5.51″ as recorded at my house on Monday, which is the equivalent of a 10-year storm event. However, with a total of 5.28″ of rain occurring over the previous six consecutive days, the event manifested itself as more like a 100-year event (7.7″ of rain in 24 hours) because of the saturated ground being unable to absorb much of the rain. The rain we got Monday is the most I’ve ever recorded at the house, which includes the 2005 tropical storm season and remnants of Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina, which both dropped less than 5″ of rain. Because of the nature of the week long rain events culminated by a 10-year storm, chances are that was a once-in-a-lifetime weather event. While we’ll certainly see flooding again at some point, the incredibly unique situation that occurred last week will likely not be repeated again anytime soon.

Once the interim plan is complete, GDOT will continue to develop a plan examining needs for a blended freight and passenger rail system. The final plan will include an inventory of all rail assets, screening criteria for improvements to the system and funding options.

If approved for federal funding, GDOT would work with sister states such as South Carolina, North Carolina and Alabama on an environmental review to include all high speed rail corridors in Georgia. GDOT also plans to work with Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida in further development of an interstate rail passenger compact which would connect Atlanta to Chicago via Chattanooga and Atlanta to Miami.

Charlotte will bat lead-off in a national high-speed rail vision road show – a series of workshops in seven U.S. cities put on by the Federal Railroad Administration.

The workshop – the only one to be held for the Southeast Corridor – will be 1-4:30 p.m. at the Renaissance Charlotte Suites Hotel, 2800 Coliseum Centre Dr. (off the Billy Graham Parkway).

Yet, there is a huge draw to the area for a couple of primary reasons also related to geography – weather and beauty. The weather of metro-Atlanta is ideal for many folks. It does get hot – but not much hotter than the midwest. It gets cold – but not even close to being as cold as the midwest and northeast. We get all four seasons, including easy drives to spectacular fall color. The topography is rolling and the growing season is long, leading to an ideal landscaping climate. The natural beauty of the area is incredible. And it’s well located – be at the beach in four hours or the mountains in two hours.

So, how do we balance this draw while providing the necessary infrastructure in an otherwise rather hostile environment for infrastructure? I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do have some ideas. Concepts that certainly need refining, however it might give us a starting point to discuss where we need to go in order to improve the quality of life of its current citizens and continue to attract and absorb those that will come for the same reasons so many of us transplants did in the first place.

First, let’s talk about the 800-lb gorilla for metro-Atlanta – transportation. The road to hell goes through Atlanta, as the saying goes. Hit Atlanta traffic at the wrong time and hell may seem like an attractive alternative. (Although, I will say that the economy must be having an impact on traffic in the metro area. Recently I drove from the airport all the way up to the north side of Gwinnett County on I-85 and never dipped below 55 MPH at 5 PM on a weekday. I never thought I’d see the day…) The traffic situation is certainly reaching critical mass and an improved economy is only going to make the situation untenable.

As stated previously, the personal car is, without question, the absolute, dominate king of Atlanta. Sure, there are token alternatives here and there, but the car defines Atlanta. Development, even within the city itself, relies heavily on the car. All of the suburban counties are totally and completely car dependent. The ITPers (those inside I-285…) like to think they’re ahead of the game somehow – but really, there is little difference ITP versus OTP. (We’ll get to Atlanta’s train system, MARTA, in a minute…) Building the interstates and major arterial  roads bigger won’t solve our problem. Sure, we need to look at ways to be smarter about how we use our existing roads and upgrade where we can, but our long term solution is not simply to make I-85 a 40 lane interstate. The interstates are practically as wide as they could ever be right now. So let’s assume they aren’t widened – what do we do to ease the traffic problems in our city?

First, we need to be pro-active about choo-choo trains, as those who defend our automobile dependent suburban heaven like to call them. Atlanta was founded around rail and rail is going to be a major, if not the biggest, solution to our traffic woes. (It will likely be the key to Atlanta’s future economic growth, but that’s another blog…) The existing rail infrastructure for passengers is MARTA and Amtrak. MARTA’s service area, however, is too limited. It’s also poorly run and a political hot potato. MARTA needs leadership that can actually figure out a way to extend it to the suburbs and it be acceptable to suburbanites. This takes leadership who can move beyond demagoging the suburbs – the lack of leadership in Atlanta, in general, is what led to many breakaway cities being formed recently including Sandy Springs, Milton and John’s Creek. The inability to play nice is severely costing the metro area.

Enough about that, let’s talk about solutions. The first ambitious plan, aptly named “The Brain Train”, would hit all of the major universities, and several smaller ones, from UGA to Georgia Tech. This could become the mainline for the northeastern portion of the metro area, with other future stations connecting into it. Cobb County and the northwest side of Atlanta has a similar plan that would connect Kennesaw State and the Cumberland Mall area presumably to MARTA, but the details of that plan are fairly slim. Gwinnett and Cobb Counties have about 1.5 million people between them alone and no rail system – that’s a problem and these two rail plans would be the building blocks for traffic relief, and at least as important, future growth for these counties. To the south, we’re very close to seeing a commuter rail between Griffin, Georgia and Atlanta. As B King points out in that blog, we need to act cohesively as a region in order to address our transportation problems. Rail is the most critical way to address not just our traffic problems, but our long term economic prosperity in the suburban counties.

Looking way out into the future, as nearby metro areas like Charlotte and Chattanooga and Atlanta converge to make something of a “mega-region” as it’s being called, there area ideas out there to address transportation issues with rail. Current Charlotte mayor Pat McCrory discussed a conceptual idea recently regarding rail service between Atlanta and Charlotte – something that would connect the many large corporations of Atlanta with the financial horsepower that Charlotte is home to. Chattanooga would become another key partner in the “mega-region” for a different, but just as important, reason – water. I’ll get to that later. Savannah has endorsed the portion of President Obama’s high speed rail line that would connect it to Atlanta and Charlotte. (By the way, looking at the proposed map by President Obama – why wouldn’t there be a connection from Lousiville to Atlanta with a stop in Nashville and Chatanooga? Is it the cost of going over the mountains?)

Getting back to the automobile, Georgia DOT has its share of problems. I wrote previously about the balancing law – something that is not DOT’s fault. It just has to live up to a ridiculous law. Once again, B King at Terminal Station sums up many of DOT’s problems quite well. Governor Perdue is attempting to correct the problems, and SB 200 is supposed to do it. However, I am skeptical of how well it will work. It may just trade one set of politics to another. The Democrats’ comments on the new system sound exactly like comments you could make of the old system, so they don’t strike me as productive. If they have a better solution than what the Governor came up with, beyond leave it like it was, they need to present it. Jay Bookman at the AJC also makes a good summary of the political problems facing Georgia in its quest to solve the metro area’s transportation problems.

The answer to this is two fold. First, end the balancing law. Second, enact the regional version of the T-SPLOST. Glenn Richardson wants a statewide transportation T-SPLOST for the very reason Mr. Bookman stated – it will continue the taking of metro area money and redistributing it outside the metro area. Finally, prioritize the projects in the same manner that Gwinnett County prioritizes its SPLOST projects – by need. Come up with logical, defensible criteria that is easy to understand and score each project on its merits. And anybody should be able to suggest projects – from the Governor to a citizen of Germany – for Georgia DOT to fund. You never know where a great idea will come from.

Finally, looking at public transportation, we need to look hard at how well it services the citizens it serves. A bus system is only as good as its ridership. I believe a bus system will be very effective in tandem with a rail system. On their own, each system will only be mediocre. Together, there is a good chance that it would provide actual congestion relief.

In my next blog, we’ll talk about the second part of Atlanta’s infrastructure that’s always in the news – water. We’ll talk drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater.

UPDATE: I found this article, which features a panel discussion on being carfree in the suburbs.

The good news is that the majority of Americans realize the problems we face – even if the politicians don’t. A recent survey indicated that 68 percent of Americans would be willing to pay more taxes to upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. A full 81 percent say that spending on infrastructure will define whether the next generation of Americans will define whether we do or do not prosper as a nation.

Think about that for a minute – nearly 7 in 10 Americans are willing to pay more taxes to address our country’s infrastructure. That speaks volumes – particularly in today’s economic environment. The fact that 4 in 5 American’s realize the importance of our infrastructure should really give you an optimistic view of the priorities we are setting for our children. It is long past time that those in control of the purse strings pay attention to this critical issue.

Much was made of the infrastructure portion of the economic stimulus package passed last month. Unfortunately, only about $98 billion of the $787 billion (or a little better than 12%) has been programmed for infrastructure improvements. Now, $98 billion is nothing to turn your nose up at. But consider that repairing the I-35 bridge that collapsed in Minnesota cost nearly $200 million to rebuild. Since Minnesota is getting just $500 million in stimulus funds, that bridge alone would have consumed nearly 40% of the state’s infrastructure stimulus funds.

As Matt Barcus at CivilEngineeringCentral.com wonders, will our infrastructure every make honor roll? He chronicles ASCE’s grades on the nation’s infrastructure over the past 20 plus years. Mr. Barcus also asks some interesting questions in regards to the findings.

• What would happen to the civil engineering industry if all these categories were given A’s & B’s?
• Would funding for infrastructure projects disappear until lower grades were given?
• And if that was the case, would ASCE be doing their members and the industry a dis-service, by reporting anything other than a crumbling infrastructure?
• Would ASCE really mislead the government and the U.S citizens by being over-dramatic with their evaluation of the infrastructure in order to spend tax-payer money on civil engineering and infrastructure projects?

The ASCE could easily be accused of scaremongering and being self serving – after all, its members (of which I am not one) would be the direct beneficiaries of perhaps trillions in additional government spending. In his blog, structural engineer Graeme Sharpe, PE points out that the way ASCE determined the grades was, ironically, not set in engineering principles. That is, an engineer uses facts and reasoning to come up with an solution to a complex problem. Now, Mr. Sharpe’s blog was written in January – before the full report from ASCE came out. Since then, the specifics of the report card have come out. He has posted a more recent blog on the subject in which he continues to criticize ASCE, although it’s not clear if he has read the full report.

Because they have no official right to set policy in this matter, ASCE is acting as a lobbyist group. And what are they lobbying for? More money. They want the US public to spend more money on civil engineering projects. Who will this benefit? Well, that’s a complicated issue. If it results in “bridges to nowhere” then additional spending won’t benefit anyone but builders and engineers. Then 20 years down the road those unneeded bridges and roads will be “crumbling” and used to justify more spending. The ability for this report to be pushed in front of the public to proclaim how much we need more bridges and superhighways is another reason I hate it.

The final reason I just wish ASCE would quit this is because it makes an implicit appeal (sometimes explicit) that spending more on infrastructure projects will provide more safety for the public. This is downright dangerous. If the last report card from 2005 had somehow convinced lawmakers to invest USD$2Trillion into all these projects, could we have averted the most famous disasters since that time? Would Minnesota’s I-35W bridge still be up? Would the city of New Orleans have been spared? The answer is no. But I have still seen these issues used to justify additional infrastructure spending.

That’s fairly strong rhetoric – and his insistence that if the money had been spent as ASCE suggested that some of the more infamous disasters still would not have been avoided. I’m not sure what Mr. Sharpe based this conclusion on. From the 2005 report card, ASCE advocates the very policies that may (of course it’s impossible to say it for sure would have been avoided) have prevented the bridge collapse in Minnesota or the failed levees in New Orleans. Mr. Sharpe is also vague on details of why he “hates it”. If he is suggesting that we don’t need more capacity on our roadways, then I don’t think his hate is based in reality.

ASCE’s report card is a rather comprehensive document – certainly they advocate more bridges and increasing capacity on our roadways. Because we need them. But they just as strongly advocate repairs, improvements and alternative modes of transportation outside of the car including mass transit, rail and aviation.

We can’t pretend that utopia can be achieved by simply ignoring the realities of today.

On our way there, we, unfortunately, have to take baby steps. Ignoring our capacity problem because it may encourage the use of the personal vehicle is folly. The personal vehicle is going to be part of our culture for at least the next several decades because that is how our nation has developed. For better or worse, that is what it is and we can’t simply pretend ignoring the problem is the answer to it.

As an engineer that lives in a fast growing city with numerous infrastructure problems, I will say the substance of ASCE’s report on the nation’s infrastructure appears to based in fact and sound reasoning. Certainly the grading system may seem a bit hokey and alarmist – but it appeals to those for which the report was written. In order for the non-engineer to gain an understanding of where an engineer places the current condition of our infrastructure you must be able communicate in a manner that the intended audience can digest and react to. After all, we’ve seen how a 1,100 page report is accepted. Just imagine an 1,100 page report filled with engineer speak.

In the next blog, I’ll focus on the infrastructure of metro-Atlanta and, by extension, its impact across much of the southeast.

Atlanta is no exception to that. People have been moving back ITP for awhile now. Gwinnett County is seeing a number of its cities develop or redevelop town centers.

Leading the way is Lawrenceville and Emory Morsberger’s efforts to rebuild and revitalize the county seat. Suwanee, which continues to gain national recognition for its livability, has built, and continues to build, what is likely metro Atlanta most ambitious development of a downtown and park system. Other cities in Gwinnett, like Norcross, Sugar Hill and Snellville, are also moving in similar directions, some with more success than others.

Mr. Brooks states that he would like to see the stimulus money that Barack Obama wants to spend on infrastructure spent in helping to build these downtowns rather than projects that are ready to go, just for the sake of getting money into the system.

Barack Obama has said that he would start an infrastructure project that will dwarf Dwight Eisenhower’s highway program. If, indeed, we are going to have a once-in-a-half-century infrastructure investment, it would be great if the program would build on today’s emerging patterns. It would be great if Obama’s spending, instead of just dissolving into the maw of construction, would actually encourage the clustering and leave a legacy that would be visible and beloved 50 years from now.

I think Mr. Brooks’ idea is a good one – stimulus money going into assisting cities build or revitalize downtowns is a noble goal. However, it would take years of planning in order for it to be done correctly. Mr. Brooks laments that the money will go to perpetuating the current modes of transportation.

But alas, there’s no evidence so far that the Obama infrastructure plan is attached to any larger social vision. In fact, there is a real danger that the plan will retard innovation and entrench the past.

In a stimulus plan, the first job is to get money out the door quickly. That means you avoid anything that might require planning and creativity. You avoid anything that might require careful implementation or novel approaches. The quickest thing to do is simply throw money at things that already exist.

Unfortunately, our infrastructure is so lacking in maintenance that we need huge investment just to get it back to an acceptable level. We are years, perhaps decades, away from truly getting to any sort of renaissance in social land development. As Mr. Brooks points out, prior to the recession, we were making great strides as the market moved in this direction.

There are certainly aspects of President-elect Obama’s plan whose outcomes are rather dubious in nature. Putting computers in classrooms, fixing school buildings, retrofitting government buildings to make them more energy efficient. (Although, I have to say, I’d rather see tax dollars go there than to propping up failing companies.) However, fixing the country’s existing infrastructure and allowing states to move forward on transportation projects that are likely desperately needed should be the first focus. As the war in Iraq winds down and, if we’re smart enough not to dump billions in private companies, Mr. Brooks idea would be a great starting point in perhaps moving us where we were already going, just a little quicker, to more social land development.

Taking a look at Georgia’s congressional district map, you can quickly see how absurd and bizarre a situation this creates. Each district has a quota, and once that quota is met, no more projects for that district, unless the project is able to negotiate the State’s waiver provisions.

Here is an interesting PowerPoint presentation that was given at the DOT’s board meeting in September. According to the minutes of the meeting, the following took place:

Earl Mahfuz, Assistant Treasurer, gave a presentation on Congressional District Balancing, which included the history of congressional district balancing; the Georgia Code on congressional district balancing and hurdles to successful balancing by congressional districts; SB 57 funding by 11 congressional districts; HB 1553 funding by 11 and 13 congressional districts and SB 4 funding by 13 congressional districts. Earl Mahfuz also stated that congressional district balancing has been practiced since 1999 and does not work.

Chris Tomlinson, General Counsel, gave a presentation on Congressional District Balancing Statutory Waiver Provisions, which included various waivers regarding congressional balancing. There was some discussion regarding waivers. Chairman Kuhlke stated that the Board will not be taking any action regarding congressional balancing at this time.

It’s not shocking that they wouldn’t take any action regarding the law – there is far too much politics involved. And too much money.

Metro-Atlanta is represented by districts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13. Very small portions of 9 and 11 also touch the outer portions of metro Atlanta. That means that, at best, metro Atlanta would be in line for just around 50% of the funding for all of Georgia for DOT projects. This comes on the heels of the DOT submitting a list of projects to President-elect Obama for his economic stimulus package of which 80 percent are in metro Atlanta.

In fact, the law is so bad that Georgia may have to pass on projects in metro Atlanta that it might otherwise get funded.

“We don’t have a congressionally balanced 180-day list,” state Commissioner of Transportation Gena Evans told the board. “It’s a question of readiness versus need.”
…
“It’s a very difficult law to comply with,” said board Vice Chairman Larry Walker of Perry. “Rather than continuing to curse this law, maybe we should try to amend it.”

And that’s a pretty different tune that Mr. Walker is singing these days. Back in November, Mr. Walker wasn’t nearly as enthusiastic about changing the law. A report came out saying that the balancing law, including the Governor’s Road Improvement Program, had outlived its usefulness.

“We made a commitment on those roads,” said board member Larry Walker of Perry, Ga., also a former longtime House majority leader back when Democrats controlled the chamber. “I don’t take lightly backing down on that commitment.”

I guess he doesn’t like backing down on a commitment when real federal dollars are at stake. Further, State Senator George Hooks of Americus had this to say.

“You’re guaranteed that you’ll leave a large part of the geographic landscape of Georgia barren.”

Perhaps some of the Georgia landscape should be barren. If there’s no market for business there, then there’s no need to build roads there – right now. The money would be better spent where it’s needed now rather than in the middle of nowhere in the hopes that something will follow. It won’t. It’s time to end the balancing law and prioritize the projects by need, regardless of their location.

Mr. Obama stated over the weekend that he intends to invest in the country’s infrastructure in the largest amount since the Eisenhower Administration. This is a critical component that the federal government has been ignoring for years, and arguably perhaps its most important duty behind national defense. The country’s infrastructure has been failing for years – its most glaring example was the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota last year.

In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers graded the country’s infrastructure – and it earned a miserable D. In the three years since that report card was scored, they conditions of the country’s infrastructure has only deteriorated, so we’d be lucky to earn a ‘D’ if ASCE does another score. ASCE estimates that it will take $1.6 trillion over the next five years to upgrade the country’s infrastructure. That was in 2005 dollars, so with the further deterioration and inflation, we can expect that number to be closer to $2 trillion.

Mr. Obama has not said what level of investment he is proposing – that his advisors were “busy working, crunching the numbers, looking at the macroeconomic data to make a determination as to what the size and the scope of the economic recovery plan needs to be. But it is going to be substantial.”

The mere comment is a boon to engineering companies. The news of the plan caused publicly traded construction services’ stocks to increase. Many of them increasing dramatically – 30% and more. Jacobs Engineering, which employs more than 43,000 people, was up nearly 16% today.

Not shockingly, several governors (all but one, Governor Schwarzenegger of California, were Democrats) came out in support of the plan.

It will be interesting to see the bones of the plan – to see what kind of projects would actually be funded. Mr. Obama hinted at the projects, which would include roads, bridges and upgrading public buildings to make them more energy efficient. He also stated that the money would be “use it or lose it” in an attempt to makes states quickly deliver projects. Personally, I’m in favor of just about any plan that upgrades the country’s infrastructure.