Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
5C H A P T E R 1 BackgroundThe Problem Statement The objectives of this project were to ⢠Identify strategies and institutional arrangements that will facilitate beneficial relationships between railroad compa- nies and public agencies; ⢠Investigate and develop innovative partnering techniques whereby railroads and the highway community can work cooperatively; ⢠Develop a draft model agreement and streamlined permit- ting processes; and ⢠Identify barriers to an effective agreement process and propose remedies. Highway agencies and railroad companies agree that the project review and project agreement processes can be improved. For this research project, more than 50 practitioners from highway agencies and railroads across the country were interviewed, and many more were surveyed. There was consen- sus among them that delays in project reviews and project agreements were common. All respondents cited instances in which either highway agency applicants or railroads con- tributed to delays. Most, however, were circumspect and were hesitant to appear critical of their counterparts, with whom they must continue working. Both highway agency representatives and railroad officials appeared willing to acknowledge that occasionally their own agencies were the cause of the delays. They would acknowledge that not all parties in their agencies were always punctual, complete, or cooperative with the other parties. The anecdotes and observations were consistent that the parties believed improvement is possible and needed. A baseline for current performance, needed to direct and track improvement, does not exist, however. The highway agencies, railroads, and some state departments of transporta- tion (DOTs) have their own internal goals and performance measures for how promptly they want reviews and agreements to be conducted. However, the research team did not finddefinitive compilations of past performance. In many cases, the research team found no common definitions, performance measures, or performance baselines between the states or railroads. Calculating length or cost of delays is thus extremely challenging. This report presents the perspectives of the state and the railroads on the project agreement process. Drawing from interviews and a survey, the report describes the perceived problems associated with the agreement process, as well as the best practices that should be embraced to improve it. Types of Projects and Types of Agreements In the United States, more than 500 railroads operate more than 140,000 miles of railway. These railways intersect more than 150,000 times with more than 4 million miles of public roads. During the course of road maintenance and construction proj- ects, the public agencies that manage these highways need to work with the railroad companies whose railways are crossed by the highways. The types of projects that the public agencies need to conduct tend to fall generally into the following categories: ⢠Improving at-grade crossings, such as resurfacing the approaches; ⢠Installing automatic flashing lights and gates or other safety improvements at at-grade crossings; ⢠Building longitudinal encroachments when parallel high- ways are improved and other projects, such as drainage ditches and structures, that interact with adjacent railway property; ⢠Constructing new overhead or under-grade structures when at-grade crossings are improved with grade separations; ⢠Reconstructing or rebuilding an existing grade separation either overhead or under-grade where additional highway capacity is needed;
6⢠Realigning track configurations to allow adjacent highway capacity or alignment improvements; ⢠Maintaining existing highway bridges that cross over rail- roads; and ⢠Installing pipe or wire crossings parallel to, perpendicular to, beneath, or overhead of the railroad when those utilities are new, upgraded, or required to accommodate an adjacent highway expansion. The seven Class I railroads and the highway agencies have interacted on such projects for decades. They have developed their respective standard agreements, processes, and protocols to address their regular interactions. However, the individu- als who manage these interactions tend to change because of retirements, promotions, or transfers. Public agencies turn over staff regularly through administrative changes. Localgovernments may interact with the railroads only sporadically because the local governments have fewer projects than do state DOTs. Therefore, the execution of standard processes for agree- ments tends to vary significantly. This variation in execution lies at the heart of this research. Note that in this report, âmemorandum of understandingâ refers to an agreement that is not legally binding, such as an agreement between the parties to adopt a partnering process. âMemorandum of agreementâ and âstandard agreementâ are used in this report when contractual elements are included in the agreement, such as an agreement to pay for engineering reviews. Highway agencies generally need contracts to be in place before they can expend funds. Memoranda of agreement include provisions that allow for the payment for services. Memoranda of understanding only reflect a shared desire to cooperate in regard to specific functions.