It’s one of several goals identified Tuesday as necessary next steps by Julie Janson, Duke Energy Corp.’s top local official, and founder of the Build Our New Bridge Now Coalition.

Janson, who chairs the Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Cincinnati Business Committee, delivered the keynote address to the annual meeting of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments. OKI calls the $2.4 billion bridge replacement the region’s most important infrastructure project.

“We’ve got to get a shovel in the ground no later than 2015,” Janson told the crowd of 350 business leaders and politicians at the Oasis Golf and Conference Center in Loveland. She said the Brent Spence advocacy group has raised more than $1.5 million from 100 member companies. And she said it will cost state, local and federal governments $8 million for every month the bridge is delayed. That’s $100 million in a year and $500 million over five years, she said.

For more on this story, click here.

After months of negotiations, Congress finally passed the Surface Transportation Re-authorization Bill. On July 6, 2012 the President signed into law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), H.R. 4348. The new law authorizes the funding of surface transportation at inflation-adjusted current levels of $105 billion through FY 2014. The bill includes provisions encouraging design-build as an accelerated project delivery method. MAP-21 also expands the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program. Funding for the program was increased to $1 billion and the type of projects eligible was expanded. This program is particularly important as it increases a state’s ability to utilize public-private partnerships. The law reforms environmental reviews of certain transportation projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. (NEPA) The bill calls for stricter timeframes on projects, limiting the environmental impact statement process to four years. Federal agencies could face financial penalties of up to 2.5 % of their budgets for failing to meet project review deadlines.
A more detailed summary can be located here.

For more updates, click here.

Design-build is an alternative to design-bid-build. Under the latter approach, design and construction are split – separate entities, separate contracts, separate work.

Design-build, design-bid-build and construction management are the three project delivery systems most commonly employed in North America. Over the past 15 years, use of design-build has greatly accelerated in the United States, making this delivery method one of the most significant trends in design and construction today.

One Contract, One Integrated Team

Design-build streamlines project delivery through a single contract between the owner and the design-build team. This simple but fundamental difference saves money and time by transforming the relationship between designers and builders into an alliance which fosters collaboration and teamwork. United from the outset of every project, an integrated team readily incorporates BIM and LEED certification goals.

The Design-Build Advantage:

Owner/Agency Benefits

Faster Delivery — collaborative project management means work is completed faster with fewer problems.

Cost Savings — an integrated team is geared toward efficiency and innovation.

Better Quality — design-builders meet performance needs, not minimum design requirements, often developing innovations to deliver a better project than initially imagined.

Singular Responsibility — one entity is held accountable for cost, schedule and performance.

Decreased Administrative Burden — owners can focus on the project rather than managing disparate contracts.

Reduced Risk — the design-build team assumes additional risk.

Reduced Litigation Claims — by closing warranty gaps owners virtually eliminate litigation claims.

Practitioner Benefits

Higher Profit Margin — an integrated team is fully and equally committed to controlling costs.

Decreased Administrative Burden — design-build streamlines communication between designers and builders.

Reduced Litigation — a Victor O. Schinnerer benchmarking and claims study shows that from 1995-2004, only 1.3% of claims against A/E firms were made by design-build contractors.

Increased Market Share— more and more owners choose design-build.

MORE ABOUT DESIGN-BUILD TODAY