National Academies Press: OpenBook

Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads (2010)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Findings and Applications
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14438.
×
Page 75

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.

48C H A P T E R 4 Conclusions and Suggested ResearchEnhancing Partnerships Partnership is a term commonly used in business. It is impor- tant to understand that partnerships that are not understood, agreed to, and appreciated by all parties involved will fail. There are many ways to develop and maintain partnerships, but they start with strategies, agreements, processes, and prac- tices that support success for both parties. Douglas M. Lambert and A. Michael Knemeyer (1) say the following about partnerships: Partnerships are costly to implement—they require extra communication, coordination, and risk sharing. They are jus- tified only if they stand to yield substantially better results than the firms could achieve without partnering. Rosabeth Moss Kanter (2) notes that “successful partner- ships manage the relationship, not just the deal”: [Business alliances] must yield benefits for the partners, but they are more than just the deal. They are living systems that evolve progressively in their possibilities. Beyond the immedi- ate reasons they have for entering into a relationship, the con- nection offers the parties an option on the future, opening new doors and unforeseen opportunities. Alliances that both partners ultimately deem successful involve collaboration (creating new value together) rather than mere exchange (getting something back for what you put in). Partners value the skills each brings to the alliance. (italics in the original) To “manage the relationships” between railroads and high- way agencies so that their partnership “yields substantially better results than the firms could achieve without part- nering” is the objective of the model processes described earlier. The model process outlined below is intended to allow the large institutions involved to identify common understandings, common processes and ongoing coopera- tion so that each achieves substantially better results in therailroad–highway agreement process than either could achieve on its own. Because two institutions are involved, the model process is formal. It is tiered and stratified to outline the broad under- standings that the parties agree to overall. It then progresses through more detailed agreements down to streamlined and standardized project-specific agreements. The intent of the model process is to outline an overall framework for ongoing partnership, agreement-streamlining and continuous process improvement. Although formal, the model process is flexible to allow it to be modified to meet the circumstances of the various railroads and highway agencies. Two successful precedents form the basis for the proposed railroad–highway partnering processes proposed here. First is the construction partnering process that has been widely adopted by many state transportation agencies and that was pioneered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Construc- tion partnering is so successful and so mature that several generations of training manuals, facilitator courses, and text- books have been developed over the past two decades. The sec- ond successful precedent forming the basis for the partnering and model processes is the field of environmental streamlin- ing. Likewise, this field has become so mature that it has its own websites, national resource centers, model agreements, and templates for success. An environmental streamlining resource center is jointly funded by FHWA and AASHTO to facilitate streamlining and environmental excellence. Both the construction partnering process and the environmental streamlining process hold many lessons and analogies for improving the partnerships and relationships of railroads and highway agencies. Principles of Construction Partnering In construction partnering, neither the owner nor the con- tractor abdicates any of their legal rights or obligations. How- ever, they use specific tools and processes to reach common

49goals. At a minimum, the steps of partnering include the following: 1. Defining what success is for both parties; 2. Formally agreeing that each wants to assist the other in achieving this common success; 3. Developing a level of service agreement that spells out what each expects from the other in terms of service and timeliness; 4. Identifying escalation paths for each to follow when prob- lems cannot be resolved at the lowest level; 5. Identifying a dispute resolution path for when escalation fails; 6. Agreeing to remain in constant communication to ensure that problems are identified early and to monitor whether milestones have been achieved; 7. Periodically analyzing what went right, what went wrong, and what can be learned for the future; and 8. Identifying critical reports and information throughout the process so that they do not become detrimental to timely project completion. Begin with Common Understanding The model process described here begins with the under- standing of both the railroads’ and the highway agencies’ per- spectives. From the railroads’ perspective, there is little benefit or new value added to their business from most highway proj- ects. On the contrary there is the possibility of encroachment and loss of valuable and irreplaceable right-of-way from these projects. In addition, the construction process can endanger rail safety and hamper rail operations. This perception needs to be addressed when discussing, developing, and enhancing partnerships between the two parties. After years of minimal growth, the railroads are now in an expansion era. Major rail- roads are looking to expand corridors in the future and are protective of their limited and finite rights-of-way. Addition- ally, project reviews are expensive to railroads. As private businesses, they need to recover the costs of these reviews. From the highway agencies’ perspective, there is a signifi- cant need to improve aging highway infrastructure, but pub- lic agencies face severe budget limitations. They are reluctant to increase project costs to accommodate the railroads unless they see an overriding safety or operational need to do so. For the highway agencies, moreover, the length of the agreement process also is important. Most highway agencies are trying to meet project schedules, which can be delayed by lengthy railroad agreement processes. Both parties, therefore, face pressures to reduce their own costs and to protect their own assets. A successful partnership or partnering process between railroads and highway agencies will need to create ongoing processes that reduce both parties’costs and protect their assets and interests to the extent possi- ble. Partnering seeks to create a win-win mindset between two parties as opposed to an “I win, you lose” approach. Partner- ing is both an agreement and an active, ongoing relationship. The partnering agreement clarifies what both parties expect and what they both want to mutually achieve. The relation- ship is the ongoing series of steps that each side takes to fulfill its obligations to the other from the partnering agreement. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and its construction industry view partnering as a means for the private sector to remain profitable while the public-sector transportation agency receives a quality product. In 2006, Caltrans, the Associated General Contractors of California, the Southern California Contractors Association, and the Engi- neering and Utility Contractors Association signed a partner- ing agreement. In it, they stated the following: We, the undersigned partners in California transportation construction, agree to work together as a cohesive, cooperative team to safely deliver quality projects to the public on time and within budget, providing an opportunity for well-managed, competent contractors to make a reasonable profit. Based on our collective experience in implementing part- nering in Caltrans construction projects, we have identified the following partnering success factors and commit ourselves to their continuous improvement. • Follow-up and Measurement • Training and Empowerment of Field Staff • Project Stakeholder Partnering • Strategic Level Partnering • Decision Making and Risk Management • Recognition and Awards. Analogous to this project, Caltrans executed an overall part- nering agreement with its construction industry addressing how they want to work together. In addition to this, Caltrans executes specific, project-level partnering agreements for each construction project. Likewise, Caltrans has proposed that highway agencies and railroads develop an overall partnering agreement for their ongoing relationships, as well as use spe- cific partnering techniques for each project. To have a successful partnership, both highway agencies and railroads will have to work on building, growing, and maintaining their relationship. The railroad–highway agency relationship can be preserved if both perceive the partnering process to lead to the efficient use of resources, appropriate compensation without wasteful administrative activities, good communication and streamlined processes for both. Partnering as a Framework A high-level process to improve the partnering between the rail- roadsandthepublicagenciesis discussed below. The partnering

50process provides the framework for collaboration at two levels: at the specific-project level and at the larger, overarching pro- grammatic level. Included in the partnering process are various practices, processes, and strategies (including examples of best practices) that can contribute to a strong partnership. Stream- lining of processes before, during, and after project implemen- tation can be effective in making the interaction between the parties and the delivery of projects effective. Models for var- ious processes are also discussed below. Some of these practices/ processes can be used during multiple stages of the project life cycle. Examples of best practices identified during the SHRP 2 R16 project hold many parallels to successful partnering strate- gies. These best practices include the following: • Project start-up meetings; • Annual highway-railroad process-review meetings; • Liaison and coordination between public agencies and rail- roads; • Formal communication and information sharing; • Escalation procedures; • Dedicated railroad person for agency projects; • Effective project management; • Quality-assurance review and feedback; • Central project repository; • Design and standards for new projects; • Project closeout meetings; and • Development of standard project agreements. These practices can be incorporated into overarching mem- oranda of understanding that highway agencies and railroads can adopt to guide and define their overall partnerships. In addition, the details of these best practices can be incorpo- rated into standardized legal project agreements that can save considerable time and cost in approving individual projects. The combination of an overall partnering process that incor- porates the best practices and streamlined standard project agreements can significantly enhance the highway–railroad project agreement process. In short, the streamlined process requires development of two types of agreements: nonbinding memoranda of understanding that spell out how the parties choose to coordinate and binding agreements. The binding master agreement and standard agreements include contract provisions that allow the highway agencies to reimburse the railroads for reviews and other costs. Steps in the Partnership Process The partnering memorandum of understanding is intended to encapsulate the parties’ understanding of how to operate in a spirit of partnering. A model partnering memorandum is included in Appendix C.Figure 4.1 is a high-level representation of a model process that public agencies and railroads could adopt for successful partnering. The first step is having meetings and discussions to begin the process of defining how each party wants to stream- line and standardize the agreement process. Step 1: Plan the Partnering Memorandum In this step, the public agency and the railroad begin discus- sions on how to reach a common approach to the highway– railroad project agreement process. The process begins with a meeting or series of meetings. The following major provisions are likely to be included in a partnering memorandum between a highway agency and a railroad: • Define what success means to each of them. • Deliberate and agree on areas in which both parties can collaborate to ensure success for both. • Agree to communicate frequently on projects and issues. • Agree to adopt project management practices for managing collaborative efforts, identifying issues early in the process and keeping projects on schedule, scope, and within budget. • Agree to adopt joint continuous improvements and best practices. These include strategic and operational best prac- tices, such as the following:  Both agree to a project-tracking process that provides notice of all pending activities.  Both agree to adopt an escalation process for problem resolution.  Both agree to adopt a dispute resolution process when the escalation process fails.  Both agree to identify desired project review times.  Both agree to track the actual review times and to use that data for performance improvement and monitoring.  Both agree that preliminary notice is given for all high- way projects that may involve railroad rights-of-way.  Both execute a standardized preliminary engineering agreement within days of railroad notice to facilitate rail- road review and comment.  Both agree to meet at least annually to discuss success and improvement opportunities for their project review activities.  Each party recognizes the other’s legal requirements.  Both agree to develop an overall master legal agreement that incorporates standard provisions universal to all projects.  Both express in writing a mutual understanding of a proj- ect review process that they recognize as logical, efficient, and effective.  Both agree to identify and adopt standard project man- agement practices similar to those identified by the Proj- ect Management Institute.

51Implement partnering memorandum of understanding Partnering memorandum of agreement Evaluate memorandum of understanding Act to improve memorandum of understanding Plan partnering memorandum of understanding Project-specific agreements Master agreement Figure 4.1. The partnering process between public agencies and railroads. Both agree to standard construction and maintenance agreements with provisions that can be incorporated into all projects.  Both recognize that they experience staff turnover and that they want to institutionalize the mutually benefi- cial project-review process to extend beyond the tenure of individuals.  Both parties identify a central point of contact responsi- ble for all project coordination.  Each recognizes that the other will expend considerable effort to execute the letter and spirit of the understanding, and both express their intent to fulfill their obligations.  Both agree to identify the typical project milestones at which they agree to submit plans for review.  The highway agency agrees to create a central project repository to assist with knowledge management and “institutional memory.”  Both recognize that frequent and ongoing communica- tion is desired.  The highway agency agrees to train project-development personnel on the basic railroad provisions to be incorpo- rated into all projects.  Agree to adopt a cooperative and joint continuous improvement attitude toward the project review process.Step 2: Implement the Partnering Memorandum In this step of the partnering process, the public agency and the railroad develop and eventually sign a memorandum of understanding formalizing their intentions to partner on the overall project agreement process (partnering MOU). Step 3: Evaluate the Partnering Memorandum This third step of the partnering process occurs sometime after the implementation of the memorandum, optimally 1 year after implementation. In this step, the railroad and the public agency meettoevaluatetheperformance and the outcome of the actions resulting from the memorandum and the practices adopted in earlier steps. During this meeting, they do the following: • Review the performance of the implemented agreements, practices, and processes as a result of the memorandum. • Review and evaluate both ongoing and completed projects. • Identify issues with the agreements, processes, and prac- tices. Potential changes and “continuous improvement” opportunities can be identified.

52Step 4: Act to Improve the Partnering Memorandum If the changes from the previous step require discussion and concurrence with others from within their respective organiza- tions, then the two parties will meet again after obtaining inter- nal feedback. The results of this step will be a list of changes that need to be made to the existing partnering agreement. These recommended improvements will then be incorporated into the memorandum and used to refine the process. The objective of Step 4 is to continue the cycle of continuous improvement throughout the partnering process. Implementation at the Program and Project Levels The four steps described above lead to a programmatic agree- ment to create a partnering process for the overall highway– railroad relationship. The same logic that is used at the pro- grammatic level is also used at the individual project level. Each project, in effect, is handled through a similar series of steps and processes that mirror the larger, programmatic relation- ship between the two organizations. Figure 4.2 shows that the implementation of the partnering process occurs at both the project level and the overall program level. The feedback from the results of the implementation both at the program and at the project level will be used as input to improve the partnering process detailed in Figure 4.1.Applicable changes will be incorporated, plans will be revised, and changes will be made to the master agreements, project agreements, program agreements, practices, and provisions in the partnering process. Examples of Best Practices and Processes The implementation steps described in this section elaborate on the best practices that are incorporated into the memoran- dum described earlier. Many of them were identified in gen- eral by the members of the advisory panel. When the advisory panel and the resulting survey identified a best practice, the project team researched examples of it as employed by high- way agencies or railroads around the country. The following best practices are synthesized from several examples found nationally. Some are modified to include examples pulled from the partnering and streamlining processes. In keeping with the project requirements, any constraints— including financial ones—that must be considered or overcome are included. Project Start-up Meeting: Trigger for the Start of Project Partnering Ongoing communication and having buy-in from both parties are key elements to developing partnerships that will ensure thePartnering process (Figure 4.1) Adoption at project level Management of projects Evaluate project outcome Changes/feedback Master agreements, processes, and practices Projects ProjectsProjects Figure 4.2. Partnering cycle.

53success of any process that is implemented. To facilitate this, conducting early start-up meetings for all new projects is a good practice. All transportation agencies have a project devel- opment process (PDP) for new projects. The PDP details the steps that agencies take from the start of the planning process to the end of construction of the project. Early in the PDP, the highway agencies look at existing data, conduct technical stud- ies, prepare base maps and identify study areas and logical ter- mini for new projects. If during this early stage the study areas indicate any potential impact to the railroads, the highway agencies should engage the railroads in early discussions. Early coordination and communication between the railroads and highway agencies could eliminate or at least reduce disagree- ments as the projects proceed to design and construction. One of the early steps in most highway agencies’ PDP is identifying stakeholders and communicating with them. High- way agencies should treat the railroads as an important stake- holder through the PDP process and communicate with them on projects that cross or are in close vicinity to a railroad. This early involvement should provide the railroads information that can initiate internal discussion and could prevent major delays later in the process. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to imple- menting this process: None. All projects affecting railroads are eventually coordinated with the railroad. This best practice only accelerates the notification and makes it routine early in every involved project. Liaison and Coordination The process for liaison and coordination of activities on proj- ects both within the agency and with the railroads plays an important role in reducing stress, minimizing miscommunica- tion, streamlining work and resource requirements, minimiz- ing delays, and effectively and efficiently delivering the project. The best decisions can fail because of improper coordination resulting in poor implementation. For projects to be successful, good decisions should be followed by good coordination that involves communicating the goals clearly and translating them into specific expectations, actions, and clear goals on deliver- ables and schedules. Highway agencies and railroads are large organizations with complex operational needs and organizational structures. Moreover, the priorities, roles, and responsibilities of person- nel in each highway agency and within various divisions and districts vary. Coordination helps get everyone to march to the same beat. It helps streamline the overall project process, elim- inate duplication, and avoid confusion on priorities. Some state DOTs have an organizational unit that is dedi- cated to coordinating all activities for the various internal divi- sions. The office also coordinates with external agencies such as the railroads. Other DOTs have virtual organizational unitswhere staff from various organizational units collaborate to coordinate the same activities. In either case, the importance of coordination is recognized and special attention is given to the activity. Also, personnel assigned to the coordination task have certain authority to take actions and manage aspects of projects. Having someone in a highway agency that acts as a liaison and coordinates projects with the railroad helps the agency in the following areas: • Focus on organizational goals. Focus on the overall agency goals and prioritize activities across projects to ensure that the overall goals of the agency are achieved. This eliminates districts and divisions focusing on regional priorities. • Eliminates internal competition. Eliminates situations in which divisions or districts communicate and negotiate higher priorities for their own projects versus those sub- mitted by other divisions or districts. It also eliminates com- petition among agency personnel for the attention of the railroads. • Reduces contentious discussions involving the railroad. The task of prioritizing projects can lead to contentious dis- cussions between the railroad and agency personnel and could have a negative effect on relationship and trust between various personnel on both sides. • Effective use of railroad’s time. Reduces the time on project management activities required from the railroads. The activities involved in prioritizing tasks across multiple proj- ects can be time consuming and often require significant time in project management including negotiations and coordination with project sponsors. It is time-consuming for the railroad to take on the task of prioritizing and coordinat- ing agency projects and activities. • Provides clear direction to railroad on agency project pri- orities. Provides clear direction and guidance to the rail- roads on the project priorities of the agency and provides clearer timelines for various deliverables. • More options for the agency to change project priorities. Enables the agency to communicate change in project pri- orities and reshuffle projects when agency priorities change. • Consistency in project management agencywide. Pro- vides consistency in dealing with projects across multiple districts and regions. This consistency makes it easier for the railroad to work on multiple projects within an agency than when dealing with varying processes and approaches of different projects and project managers within an agency. • Consistency in negotiations and billing. Facilitates con- sistency in negotiations, policies, billings, designs, agree- ments, and other aspects of work between the agency and the railroads. • Facilitates continuous improvement. Facilitates continu- ous improvement and sharing and adoption of best prac- tices within the agency.

54District/regions 2-year prioritized project list Review of projects from list across all districts/regions Synchronize combined project list with agency goals Input from districts/ regions Prioritize projects agency- wide to create an agency project list Meet and review agency list with senior management Select projects from agency project list Yes Combined 2- year project list Input from central office, districts/ regions Final project list Projects not selected Liaison initiates discussion with railroad Meeting with railroad and districts/regions Liaison coordinates processing of paperwork and agreements Agreements Liaison coordinates project start-up meeting Updates team on best practices, model processes, methodology Coordinates and facilitates selection of model processes and agreements for project District manages project and keeps liaison updated on project progress and issues and conducts Liaison hands over project management responsibilities to district project manager of project’s virtual team and becomes part Memorandum of understanding/partnering process/ incorporating model processes and agreements Figure 4.3. Steps in coordinating projects.A number of steps are involved in the coordination of proj- ects (Figure 4.3). First, the districts/regions prioritize their list of projects that involve the railroad for the next 2 years and provide the priority list to the liaison. The liaison then 1. Reviews projects across all divisions and regions; 2. Creates a combined 2-year list of projects; 3. Synchronizes the 2-year list to ensure consistency with the goals of the agency; 4. Obtains input from districts and divisions, prioritizes the project list, and prepares for meeting with agency senior management; 5. Meets with appropriate level of agency senior manage- ment and discusses and finalizes the list and the order of priority;6. Communicates with the agency’s districts and regions and obtains concurrence; 7. Coordinates with the railroads and initiates discussion; 8. Coordinates with all internal agency divisions and appro- priate person(s)/areas within the railroads to schedule discussions and meetings to get all necessary paperwork completed and appropriate agreements signed; 9. Leads the initial coordination and start-up meetings for projects; 10. Provides an update and shares information about agency processes, best practices, and methodology with agency and railroad teams, as appropriate (this information shar- ing ensures consistency in practices across projects); 11. Hands over project management lead responsibility to districts/regions;

5512. Stays involved as a virtual project team member on the projects; 13. Keeps track of project progress and coordinates activities between divisions/regions, other offices within the agency, and the railroads to resolve issues and keep the projects on schedule, scope, and budget; 14. Attends relevant project meetings and assists with resolv- ing issues; 15. Attends national conferences and communicates with other states to keep updated on new practices, processes, methodologies, and other issues that can help improve agency project delivery; and 16. Attends closeout meetings and culls new practices, pro- cesses, and lessons learned and incorporates these into the agency knowledge base for use in future projects. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to imple- menting this process: The creation of the position or office of liaison will require initiative and buy-in from the agency lead- ership team. Since the liaison will be required to work across districts on the prioritization of projects and in the event of any resource constraints, will need to have the authority to make decisions, support for the position/office of the liaison from senior agency management is important. A possible con- straint could be the cost of funding such a position. Formal Communication and Information Sharing In today’s age of mass communication and e-mail overload, the balance between no communication and too much com- munication is extremely important. Effective communica- tion involves communicating with the right person(s) and providing the right amount of information that has the right level of detail. Ensuring that appropriate communication protocols are identified ahead of time and followed through will facilitate partnering and keeping projects on track. The information gathered by the SHRP 2 R16 project team showed that, frequently, delays in obtaining timely reviews and feedback occurred in agencies where communication was informal. Railroads have procedures on who should be contacted and what needs to be included in the communication pack- age for various services on projects. For instance, BNSF has partnered with Staubach Global Services to provide all real estate services. Staubach processes all requests for permits to access BNSF’s property. The process for contacting and communicating with Staubach is formal and is detailed on a website. Similarly, Norfolk Southern Corporation has secured the services of DMJM Harris to process all right-of- entry applications. The process includes application pro- cessing and approval. After approval is received, the agency has to contact the approved Norfolk Southern designeelisted in the approval papers before entering the Norfolk Southern property. Although the railroads have created a position of public projects manager (PPM) who is responsible for coordinating all project activities between divisions and sections within the railroad and the public agency, there are processes similar to those listed above where interacting with the railroads does not involve the PPM. The railroad PPM is likewise not the one to contact for obtaining flagging services. Depending on the type of project and the railroad involved, the processes vary. So, it is important for each agency to identify early in the process all appropriate communication protocols, processes, and contact persons for various aspects of the project, along with their responsibilities and contact information. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to implement- ing this process: The communication processes vary, depending on the type of project and the railroads involved. To keep proj- ects on schedule, the agency should identify all applicable processes and make them available to the project team. The processes may change periodically making it necessary for quick review and validation at the start of the project. This is especially important if the project team members are new to the process or have not worked on similar projects with a par- ticular railroad. A lack of resources to devote to this task would be the primary constraint. Escalation Procedures Having an escalation procedure for timely resolution of issues is common practice in the service industry. Delays in solving a customer problem could lead to irreparable damage to a com- pany’s name and to loss of customers and future business. To mitigate such issues, escalation procedures are integrated into service industry operations. They help keep projects on track and expeditiously resolve issues or find solutions to customer queries within a prespecified period. Escalation procedures also are common in construction project partnering. Most construction partnering agreements include a clear path of different levels of escalation that should be pursued if decisions cannot be reached within a specified period. Likewise, the environmental streamlining guidance generally includes escalation procedures when front-line staff at highway agencies and resource agencies cannot reach agreement. Escalation procedures are sometimes perceived as a bad practice of going above someone in the chain of command to achieve a resolution. However, there are circumstances when a project can come to a standstill without escalation in which one cannot find fault with the participants. Examples include the following: • Limitation in technical expertise of the participants involved; • Limitation in authority to approve changes to the project scope, schedule, or budget;

56• Need to add other resources to the project beyond the authority of current participants; • Schedules of current participants may not permit timely resolution of issues; • Legislative, policy, and other regulatory changes beyond the charge or authority of participants involved; and • Need to get other internal and external parties involved in the decision. Escalation procedures are effective if used constructively to deliver projects on time and within scope and budget. The process suggested is a generalized version of the process adopted by the Washington State Department of Transporta- tion (WSDOT). WSDOT has successfully used escalation pro- cedures to expedite agreement processing. Its formal escalation procedure to address issues related to agreement processing between its Environmental and Engineering Programs Divi- sion and BNSF, detailed in chapter 3 (see p. 35), can be consid- ered a starting point for highway agencies and railroads, and it can be changed to accommodate individual agency and rail- road circumstances, project types, needs, agreements, and orga- nizational structure. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to imple- menting this process: The success of this strategy depends on both the agency and the railroads agreeing to have managers in the higher levels available for meetings and discussions to resolve issues expeditiously. Dedicated Railroad Person for Agency Projects The railroads operate as a business; major areas of their focus are safety, growth, and profitability. Highway projects, how- ever, in a majority of cases, do not help the railroads. The organizational structure of the railroads is streamlined to do railroad projects. Typically, railroads have four major divisions: transportation, engineering, mechanical, and mar- keting. Often, depending on the type and complexity of the highway projects that involve the railroads, several, if not all, of these four divisions have some involvement with public projects. Receiving and responding to communications and coordinating requests for input on projects and services from multiple states, and sometimes from multiple persons within one state agency, can be time-consuming and often frustrat- ing for the railroad personnel. To mitigate such issues and to streamline the process of coordinating project requests and activities with the rail- roads, most Class I railroads have created the position of the public projects manager (PPM). The PPM is responsi- ble for coordinating all project activities between the rail- road (including all its divisions and sections) and the publicagency. Still, the PPMs are responsible for multiple states and their busy schedules make it difficult for them to focus their attention on just one state’s projects. The business model of the railroad requires each division/section to be indepen- dently profitable. The uncertainty in the number of projects, in a project’s proceeding beyond the preliminary engineering stage and getting completed, and the in the level of funding that will be available from the states makes it difficult for the railroads to add resources to the public project’s area. Over the years, several state agencies have each funded a position in the railroads dedicated to focusing and expediting the respec- tive agencies’ projects. For example, WSDOT funds a position in BNSF that • Expedites and coordinates reviews, approvals, and process- ing agreements; • Manages BNSF’s public agency construction and mainte- nance agreement process, including reviewing and distrib- uting agreement documents and contract plans, securing estimates of work to be done by BNSF, and performing other duties normally handled by the BNSF PPM; • Schedules face-to-face meetings and manages other aspects of coordination between WSDOT and BNSF to keep agency projects that interact with or impact BNSF property within schedule, budget, and scope; • Signs and releases the agency project-related agreements, approval letter, and regulatory petition (subject to BNSF rules governing delegation of authority and the responsibil- ities normally within the authority of the BNSF PPM); and • Keeps both parties informed about project status and issues, expedites issue resolution, and submits monthly reports detailing work performed in the previous month. The responsibilities of both sides are detailed in an agreement. During interviews and discussions with both the railroads and the transportation agencies, participants said project delays occurred on projects as a result of the time taken to get both sides available for meetings to resolve issues. Sometimes the cost of such delays could be more than the cost of funding a position with the railroad. Though the delays are often unavoidable, stopping project work can cost the agency thousands of dollars a day. Since it may not be financially possible or politically pop- ular for an agency to fund such a PPM position in the rail- road, state agencies could adopt a hybrid version of the model adopted by WSDOT. This hybrid version would include the following considerations: • Two or three adjacent states that work with the same rail- road collaborate on funding a position in the railroad dedicated to addressing their needs.

57• The dedicated railroad person could meet each of the collaborating/partnering states in rotation on an agreed schedule. • The collaboration makes it possible for more give-and-take between the partnering states. • In case of serious issues requiring more attention in one state for a short period, the collaborating agency liaisons could negotiate temporary schedule changes. • The partnering states could collaborate on developing standard agreements, processes, and practices for arrange- ments and workings between the agency and the railroad. • With a larger pool of resources to tap, the partnering state agencies could benefit from knowledge sharing. This arrangement would also allow the railroad to focus more effort on the agencies’ projects. Depending on the needs and circumstances of each partnering agency, changes can be made to customize this model process. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to imple- menting this process: Success of this strategy depends on adja- cent states having projects with the same railroad. It will also depend on the willingness of the states to collaborate. There may be some challenges to collaborate on funding the position. The partnering agencies will have to spend some time initially to discuss and detail the working arrangements. However, all the constraints appear surmountable. One process that is a result of having a dedicated person within the railroad is the WSDOT–BNSF agreement process that is shown in Figure 3.1. The process ensures that all agree- ments between the agency and the railroad will be completed within 31 weeks of initiation. An enhancement of this model would be the inclusion of a financial incentive for meeting the project duration goal. For example, it is common practice for construction project agreements to include financial incentives to the contractor for completing the project before a specified goal date and a penalty for delay beyond a specified date. A similar model could be included in the agreement processing, where some form of financial incentive can be included for agreements that are processed before the agreed duration is completed. Effective Project Management Bad project management can delay even a simple project, while the most complex and difficult project can be successfully completed within schedule, scope, and budget using effective project management. Good project management can help minimize stress, conflicts, contentious relationships, and sur- prises and smooth the working relationship between highway agencies and railroads. During the project team’s visits and interviews with agen- cies they observed that agencies that had formal processes formanaging projects with the railroads were more successful at identifying potential issues and getting them resolved early in the process. Agencies with more informal processes that often revolved around using e-mail and calling the railroads on an as-needed basis to discuss issues had more difficulty getting timely responses. The delay in responding to on-the-spot calls has been attributed to the busy schedules of the railroad proj- ect managers and the lack of clarity regarding the issue that needed to be resolved. By adopting formal project manage- ment processes, these issues can be improved. Some recommended activities associated with project man- agement that can help expedite review and delivery of highway projects are listed below. Each project will have its own nuances and will require the project manager to make adjustments based on resource availability and staffing commitments. Some of the steps for effectively managing projects that interact with or involve railroads include: • Kick-off meeting. Having a virtual or face-to-face kick-off meeting at the start of each project is a recommended proj- ect management best practice. Considering the busy travel schedules and large territories covered by the railroad PPMs, this also initiates the process of getting both parties engaged and brings the project back into focus for both sides. • Participation management. Prior to the start of the project, identify and clarify roles and responsibilities. This will make clear who does what and when and will make the manage- ment and delivery of the project more efficient. • Schedule management. Ensure that before the project starts, the schedule of activities needed to successfully com- plete the project is agreed on or at least understood by both parties. The schedule is monitored and managed carefully and all changes are agreed on and reflected in the schedule. The project schedule should be easily accessible to every- one on the project. The project manager should keep everyone associated with the project informed about the activities, with special emphasis on those on the critical path, and follow up on activities that have potential to get delayed or that are delayed. • Scheduled monthly or quarterly project-update meet- ings. A formal schedule for conducting meetings ensures that time is allocated to the project. These meetings will vary in frequency, depending on the stage and complexity of the project. The frequency of most project meetings build up to monthly and then reduce to quarterly or less frequently toward the end of the project. The project man- ager can monitor the project progress and make changes to schedules as necessary. • Detailed agenda for each meeting. Providing a detailed agenda ahead of time will ensure some level of preparation by attendees prior to the meeting. It also keeps focus on important areas that need discussion and keeps the meeting

58on track. It helps the team resolve project issues and keeps everyone informed about decisions made on the project. • Tracking issues and assigning responsibility for resolu- tion. Anything that is measured and tracked is more likely to get done, so issues and their effective resolution must be identified early and deadline dates for resolution of issues and follow-up on resolutions should be specified. The proj- ect manager should list and discuss all issues during meet- ings and assign responsibility for resolution of each issue to individuals or groups. Special emphasis should be given to the following areas:  Design standards;  Safety and railroad operations;  Project review and schedule;  Resource allocation;  Costs and billing; and  Insurance. • Meeting minutes. Meeting minutes must be promptly captured and shared with participants and those involved in making decisions. • Informal discussions. The project manager should provide time and opportunity whenever possible for informal dis- cussions. These allow participants to discuss and share con- cerns and issues that they may otherwise be reluctant to discuss and help build trust and strengthen relationships. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to imple- menting this process: There may be resource constraints that make it difficult to assign agency resources to manage the proj- ect during its early stages. In some cases, there may be some upfront effort required to develop the project plan, schedule meetings, and get the participation needed for the successful completion of the project. Conducting Quality Assurance Reviews and Feedback The quality improvement cycle shown in Figure 4.4 is an effec- tive way of analyzing processes; identifying areas of improve- ment; monitoring performance; devising action plans to improve performance; and then revising goals, processes, and action plans to further improve performance. This cycle of continuous improvement not only helps improve processes and practices but also helps knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer with new employees. The continuous-improvement cycle is inherent within the memorandum of understanding discussed earlier. The continuous-improvement principles have been incor- porated into the following model for a quality assurance review process. Conducting quality assurance reviews (QARs) and providing feedback on practices, agreement processing, issue resolution, and other activities can improve performance andQuality assurance review preparation On-site review Postreview feedback Develop and implement actions Disseminate information Monitor actions Figure 4.4. Steps in the continuous-improvement process.identify innovations. The quality assurance reviews can serve as an effective mechanism to build partnerships within the agency and between the highway agency and the railroad. There are sev- eral models for conducting QARs, and agencies can customize the models depending on their needs. The review cycle is gener- ally conducted every alternate year. A simple model involves creating a quality assurance review group (QARG) that will be responsible for conducting the reviews. This group can be a virtual group that meets according to a predetermined schedule to work on the QAR. The QAR is conducted on districts and divisions that have worked on railroad–highway projects during the review cycle. The QAR consists of six major steps: 1. Quality assurance preparation; 2. On-site review; 3. Postreview feedback; 4. Develop and implement improvement actions; 5. Disseminate information; and 6. Monitor actions. Quality Assurance Preparation The following actions are taken by the QARG in preparation for the quality review: • Select representative projects from each district and division, including projects in the stages of planning, preliminary de- velopment, and construction. • Review actions and plans implemented in previous review cycles.

59• Highlight potential areas of excellence and areas of defi- ciency for review during the site visit. • Communicate and schedule a date for each site visit. On-Site Review • The QARG meets with the district and division personnel to jointly review the processes and practices identified as areas of excellence and areas of deficiency during the prepa- ration phase. This often involves a step-by-step review from the start to the end of each process. If there is any impact on the railroads or if action is required from them, they will also be invited to these meetings. • The two teams (one consisting of the QARG and district and division personnel and the other of the railroad person- nel) may jointly review new agreements from initiation to execution. • For the preliminary engineering and construction stages, the QARG, district and division personnel, and, if avail- able, railroad personnel  Start with reviewing the steps involved with agreement initiation;  Review the planning and coordination processes used, looking at each process at various milestone points in the project life cycle—for example, at approximately 30%, 60%, and 90% of project development; and  Look at project management and other activities that occur during the construction process, including day- to-day project activities; communication; process used to manage schedule, cost; and scope; time taken to resolve issues, billing, insurance, and other similar activities that could potentially delay a project. • For projects that are completed during the review cycle, the team  Reviews postconstruction activities, such as postconstruc- tion meetings;  Examines the lessons learned; and  Ensures that the lessons learned are incorporated into the agency processes and that procedures are in place for incorporating future lessons learned. • During the review, the QARG validates areas of excellence and areas of improvement identified in the preparation phase and creates a final list for follow-up. • The QARG also checks to see if early coordination is being done. Postreview Feedback • After the review is completed, the QARG provides a written report back to each district and division and all railroads involved in the quality review, as applicable. The report pro- vides feedback on their performance, areas of excellence, and areas of deficiencies.• The district/division and, where applicable, the rail- roads review the feedback report and respond with their comments. Develop and Implement Improvement Actions • In collaboration with individual districts/divisions and rail- roads, where applicable, the review team sets up action plans that address the areas of improvement. • The implementation plans have goals and deadlines for each action. • The improvement action items are also reviewed in the next review cycle. Disseminate Information • The QARG either conducts one joint meeting with all the districts/divisions and railroads that were part of the qual- ity review or conducts meetings with each district and each division and railroad as applicable, to share findings. • At this meeting, the QARG will share  The summary of all good practices and all areas of excellence;  The areas of deficiencies and actions implemented to address issues;  Practices to avoid; and  Lessons learned. Monitor Actions • The QARG monitors the results of implemented actions and provides guidance as necessary. • The QARG conducts meetings to ensure that action plans are being implemented and the desired outcome is being achieved. The above process provides the focus necessary for contin- uous improvement and facilitates sharing of knowledge and best practices within the agency. Agencies can modify the process, the review cycle and the timing of the reviews to meet their agency needs. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to imple- menting this process: There may be resource constraints that make it difficult to assign agency resources to conduct qual- ity assurance reviews. Central Project Repository Locating information days or months after it is received is challenging. Having a central repository for all projects makes it easier to publish, post, retrieve, and review the latest proj- ect information. Sending simple e-mails with links when new information is posted on the site can act as a trigger for

60the recipient to access the link and view the information. This also allows the participants to go to the repository link anytime later and access the information. The repository can be a sim- ple file system on a server managed through permission con- trols or it can be a simple application permitting access through a website. The most common practice for communication between the railroads and highway agencies currently is via e-mails, attaching documents to e-mails where necessary. The advan- tage of e-mail is that it can be accessed from anywhere using mobile devices and is thus a quick way to communicate. On the other hand, this convenience has led to the excessive use of e-mails, where it becomes difficult to sort through the giga- bytes of e-mails and to distinguish the important e-mails from the unimportant. Agency staff and railroads have shared some of the chal- lenges and hurdles that new employees face because of a lack of formal transition of documents and training as they start work- ing on projects. One agency staff member shared his challenge of having to sift through years of files and finally having to ask the railroads for information to help him get started on a proj- ect. Another public agency–railroad liaison explained how his predecessor had created a folder of several years of project doc- uments that he handed over prior to his retirement. The files were invaluable and helped with a quicker transition. The folder had years of project information, issues, and resolutions and continues to be a valuable resource. The railroad public projects manager coordinates and directs most of the communication between the public agency and the internal divisions/sections within the railroads. The PPMs normally forward documents received from the public agen- cies to others within the railroads and then responds back to the public agencies using e-mails to forward documents reviewed and approved by the railroad personnel. Although convenient, the exclusive reliance on e-mails does not create an institutional record of transmittals between the highway agency and the railroad. In view of the current communication practices in the industry, the model process uses e-mails where appropriate, along with links to files on a central repository. The model pro- poses a central repository where all information associated with projects that involve both road and rail is stored in a log- ical fashion. Change management and version control proce- dures should be defined, shared with all users, and managed at the project level by the project manager. This will ensure that appropriate versions of pertinent documents for each project are stored in the repository and access to the files/folders can be managed and controlled. An agency can decide whether to give access to folders and files to a railroad depending on the agency’s business model. Even if access to the repository is pro- vided to agency personnel only, the agency will benefit both in cost savings on storage and access and by creating a knowledgebase of projects that will be beneficial for all agency employees. This will reduce the time required for new employees to get conversant on projects, practices, and other pertinent informa- tion as they start working on projects. The repository can be implemented to facilitate consistency and sharing of practices across projects. A central repository has many useful functions. These include the following: • Projects and files can be logically organized. This will help new personnel to navigate the file structure and find proj- ect information. Staff turnover is a common problem. The repository can play an important role in knowledge sharing and help train new personnel taking on project responsibilities. • It allows access to files through e-mail links. Processes can be implemented where employees can get alerts when new files are published to the repository or changes are made to proj- ect plans. The agency can also allow the railroad personnel, if given permission, to access the repository and download or review files via the links. • It enables agency personnel to review both technical and managerial information associated with older projects that may be helpful to ongoing or new projects. • It makes it easy to access project information and docu- ments at anytime in the life of the project. • It helps manage versions. It is easier to access the latest ver- sion of documents from a central repository instead of having to search e-mails or to search within personal file folders to access versions of documents. • It reduces use of overall disk storage in the agency when all versions of documents are stored and accessed via the central repository. This eliminates the need for individual employ- ees to save attachments received in e-mails. • It leaves a legacy of information on projects for future employees. The repository is a good place to access old agreements and information about processes, practices, lessons learned, and issues encountered and how they were resolved. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to imple- menting this process: Implementing a central repository requires initial investment of time and resources. Agencies may have many other priorities competing for resources and since a mechanism of e-mails exists to serve the purpose, they may not give the design and implementation of a repository the priority necessary to make it successful. Model Process for Design and Construction Though this aspect has been covered in several other processes, a special focus is being given here to design and construction

61details because of the disproportionate attention they received throughout the project’s interviews. Concerns for safety by the railroads have triggered many discussions stemming from the highway agencies’ construction phasing and design details deviating from the railroads’ recommended standards. In order to address these concerns, the following process is recommended: • Involve the railroads early in the project development process. • Where possible, in preparing project plans and designs, hire engineering firms that have experience working on similar projects involving both roads and railroads. • Use design standards and processes approved by the rail- roads. These are documented by each railroad. • Get sign-off from the railroads as the project proceeds through the planning, design, and construction process. • Make sure to have frequent and constant communication with the railroad throughout the project development pro- cess, including at 30%, 60%, and 90% plan completion. • Identify, closely manage, and resolve issues, and monitor progress on  Complex design and related issues;  Changed design standards;  Safety standards; and  Construction issues that require special modification. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to imple- menting this process: The railroads have great concerns about changes to standard designs or construction methods, so it is important for the agency to make sure that staff and con- sultants working on projects are trained in railroad design. It is also important to get the railroads involved and com- fortable with the design early in the project development process. Model Agreements Public agencies are required to have a contract in order to make payments to other entities. Therefore, contracts must be exe- cuted before highway agencies can compensate railroads for preliminary engineering reviews, flagging services, easements, and other expenses relating to highway railroad projects. Agreements for such payments lend themselves to standardiza- tion because of the similar issues that they repeatedly address. The use of standard agreements for many types of projects has been common for a number of years. Interviews with highway agencies revealed that they commonly reuse, with slight mod- ifications, past contracts that have been earlier agreed to by both parties. An innovation in the use of standard agreements is the devel- opment of an overall master agreement that incorporates manybasic legal provisions, which then can be incorporated by refer- ence in subsequent project–specific agreements. The list below details the types of provisions that can be included in the mas- ter agreement. The master agreement can address recurring non-project-specific issues, such as how to address standard provisions in construction contracts, insurance limits, person- nel training, and other issues universal to all projects or contrib- utory to the partnering process. A generic master agreement is provided in Appendix C. Another advantage of the master agreement is that it can be the legal vehicle to compensate the railroads for expenses that improve the overall process but are not tied to individual proj- ects. Generally, if a project agreement is the only vehicle for allowing payment, costs need to be associated with a specific project. This payment limitation can inhibit the railroads from providing engineering advice on general practices, which may be necessary to enhance the overall partnering process. If the master agreement includes provisions for the payment of general advice, then those provisions can be the basis for the railroads to participate in a wider range of interactions in the partnering process. The following are typical master agreement provisions: • Parties agree to authorize preliminary engineering (PE) within 30 days of notification of the railroad. • No contractors or department employees can proceed with- out written approval from the railroad. • Railroad will provide right-of-entry for PE and construction activities, with due notice. • Department agrees to select consultants experienced with specific railroad. • Department will ensure that insurance provisions will be met by contractor. • Railroad will make all reasonable efforts to accommodate contractors. • Parties recognize that it is in the interest of taxpayers and shareholders that both entities economize. • Railroad agrees to 60-day reviews of PE submittals. • Department will provide 30 days’ notice of flagging needs. Railroad will make all reasonable attempts to provide flagging. • Railroad will specify operating envelope and construction windows. • Both want safe, efficient highway and railroad operations. • Railroad agrees to keep thorough records for invoicing of PE expenses. • Plans affecting railroad will require approved safety train- ing for contractors. • A separate right-of-way agreement will be developed if needed. • Parties recognize that a master agreement is needed to standardize the legal review process.

62• Department agrees to 30-day prompt payment of complete invoices. • All plans will require preconstruction meeting to be offered to railroad. • A postconstruction meeting will be offered to railroad. • Preliminary engineering is defined. • Both parties will agree to standard PE rate schedule. • All plans will note the railroad’s control of the project site and its ability to direct the contractor in issues relating to safety and train operations. • Separate project agreement will address maintenance agreement. • Both parties agree to develop a standard PE agreement. • Both parties agree to abide by Title 23 eligibility. • All plans will note that the contractor will abide by all rail- road utility and right-of-way agreements. • Thirty days’ notice will be given railroad for maintenance right-of-entry needs. • Department agrees to give timely notice of intention to develop a project. • PE approval does not constitute project approval or par- ticipation. • Plans will note that railroad has the right to inspect and approve all work affecting railroad. • Railroad will keep and provide auditable, complete records. • The parties will indemnify the other for individual negli- gent liability and will share joint liability. • Department will attempt 30-day prompt payment of railroad expenses. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to imple- menting this process: There appear to be no legal or financial constraints to the process of developing a master agreement. The provisions of the master agreement are not new in that they have been included in the individual project agreements. There may be institutional constraints to developing a master agree- ment. These constraints could consist of the time involved for staff attorneys to negotiate a master agreement and of institu- tional inertia regarding developing a new process. Scheduled Project Closeout Meetings Another best practice is the conduct of closeout meetings after complex or major construction projects to share prac- tices that helped the project and to compile lessons learned. This should be a forum where both sides can share candidly their experience about the project and about the practices, processes, and aspects of agreements they recommend be retained and those that should be eliminated or changed. Areas for discussion could include the following: • Identification of processes and practices that expedited and helped the successful delivery of the project.• Analysis and discussion of practices, processes, and docu- ments that delayed or hindered the project. • Discussion of practices, processes, and documents that need to be revised. • Identification and resolution of possible billing and reim- bursement issues. • Identification of changes that need to be made to  Any agreement;  Other legal processes;  Bill processing;  Reimbursements;  Project management processes;  Any aspect of insurance; and  Other aspects of the project. This feedback process will allow the agency to make refine- ments to the existing approach and agreements to benefit future projects. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to imple- menting this process: None, except for the staff and travel time involved. Annual Meetings Irrespective of the type or complexity of the projects, there is general agreement that conducting annual meetings with par- ticipation from both the railroads and the highway agencies will help build partnerships. State transportation agencies such as the Pennsylvania and Iowa DOTs that conduct annual meetings and the railroads that participate in them, give such annual meetings high marks. Pennsylvania invites a mix of different people, thus provid- ing a forum for exchange of information and an opportunity to brainstorm and to network. Invitees include central office and district personnel and attorneys from the state. Railroads bring representatives from various levels of their manage- ment, including their attorney, public projects manager, and director of public works. They also bring to the meeting rep- resentatives from engineering firms that work with them on highway agency projects. The Iowa DOT invites to the meeting similar representatives as well as railroad staff working on current projects and those who are expected to work on the following year’s projects. The idea of such a meeting is to discuss big-picture issues and to work toward establishing a common understanding of important areas, and then to agree on the mechanisms and processes to ensure successful execution of projects. A high-level checklist of items to be considered at the annual meeting includes the following: • Share communication protocols and contact information of personnel from both sides, particularly for new members.

63• Exchange information that will facilitate shared under- standing and lead to establishing and meeting common expectations. • Discuss issues and resolutions about current and previous year’s projects. • Discuss legal issues faced and any that are expected in the coming year, along with resolutions. • Discuss processes and resolve any issues related to insurance, billing, or reimbursements. • Discuss lessons learned and best practices from within the agency and the railroad. • Discuss lessons learned and practices from other states or other railroads that are applicable and could be beneficial. Examples include the following:  Simple agreement and lump sum payment for rehabilita- tion projects as used by Iowa DOT;  Conducting preconstruction meetings and inviting sur- rounding businesses and community for briefing on proj- ect and impacts, if any;  Processes for collaboration on rehabilitation projects; and  Simple two-page standard agreement for rebuilding and rehabilitation of at-grade crossings. • Discuss and make revisions to escalation procedures as nec- essary. If an escalation procedure is not in place, this could be a forum to start the discussion about an escalation process. • Review and refine any dispute resolution process that is currently in use. If none exists, then share information and brainstorm about such processes used in other states and start the conversation for adoption in the state. • Share information about major initiatives and major projects that either party will be involved with in the coming year. • Share information about any expected legislation, ordi- nances, or regulations that will have an impact on projects or operations. • Provide an opportunity to discuss any issues or questions about master agreements currently being used by the agency and railroad. • Share master agreements from other states, the adoption of which will improve the project and processes for both sides. If possible, have someone from the state and railroad using the agreement either attend or, using video or phone, participate in the meeting to share their perspectives and answer questions. • Discuss issues with existing project management processes. Update and refine the process based on feedback and discussion. • Discuss any impacts to funding of projects. This could be increases or decreases in funding, along with changes to any processes related to funding. Legal, financial, institutional, or other constraints to imple- menting this process: None, except for the staff and travel time involved.Railroad Incentives Cooperation between highway agencies and railroads in devel- oping project agreements occurs continuously, as was docu- mented by the discussions, surveys, and interviews summarized elsewhere in this report. All the Class I railroads devote con- siderable staff resources to accommodating reviews and to responding to state highway agency requests. Any discussion of incentives to increase cooperation should not be construed to indicate that little cooperation already exists. Despite the institutional efforts to cooperate with public projects, delays do commonly occur and disagreements arise over project costs, scopes, and schedules. The delays that occur with project agreements indicate that some types of projects and some types of agreement processes are more successful than others. The best practices to reduce such delays were dis- cussed earlier as were the federal regulations that can hamper the agreement process. In this section of the report, the issue of incentives for rail- road companies to collaborate with highway renewal projects is examined. In summary, many of the incentives for collabo- ration are very closely related to the best practices and process innovations cited earlier. The incentives for cooperation tend to be very similar to the practices, agreement provisions, atti- tudes, and communication strategies that already have been identified as streamlining the review process. Providing incentives for the railroads to collaborate requires approaching the agreement process from the railroads’ per- spective. Projects and processes that complement the rail- road’s operations, reduce their risk, preserve their assets, and enhance their capacity are most often cited by the railroads as inducing their collaboration. Railroads are privately held companies that survive only if shareholders are rewarded financially through increased stock value or dividends, providing customer service that is reliable and cost competitive, reducing their operating expenses, increasing profit while reducing the operating ratio, and oper- ating in a safe manner. Any incentives would have a positive effect in these areas. Attractive incentives for collaboration generally lie in three areas: safety and liability, capacity, and reduced operating costs. Safety and Liability Safety and liability are of overriding importance to a railroad. The railroad is interested in the safety of their trains, their employees, their cargo, anyone who ventures on to their prop- erty, and the surrounding communities through which they pass. The exposure to current and future liability is a major risk for the industry. As noted, railroads are required to provide transportation for hazardous materials. Whenever a contrac- tor is working on or near the tracks, the possibility of a cata- strophic hazardous material release that could cause deaths,

64debilitating injuries, and even mass evacuations increases. Some of the materials the railroads are required to transport include airborne and flammable toxic chemicals whose release could create significant loss of life and property, as well as dis- ruptions to homes and businesses. The Class I railroads provide a greater institutional focus on safety than is typical within the average state highway agency. Safety is not simply a slogan, but a way of operation practiced intensely throughout the industry. From a project-approval perspective, projects that improve rail safety or reduce railroad liability are more likely to be well- received and more quickly approved, according to the rail offi- cials interviewed for this study. The following are examples of these projects: • Closing of highway grade crossings; • Consolidating grade crossings; • Constructing grade separations, particularly overhead; • Safety improvements to highway grade crossings; • Sealed grade crossing improvements, such as four-quadrant gates; • Installation or upgrades for automatic flashing light signals and gates; and • Securing pedestrian access on rights-of-way through fenc- ing or other means. A major goal of every railroad and the Federal Railroad Administration is to reduce the number of highway–railroad grade crossings. The liability that exists with motorists trav- eling across freight or passenger rail grade crossings is signif- icant, and the only way to reduce the railroads’ full exposure is by eliminating the crossing itself. Projects that are initiated with grade crossing reduction will be supported by the indus- try and may lead to financial contribution from the railroad. Corridor projects whereby a host of contiguous at-grade cross- ings are evaluated with the target of closing grade crossings and improving the safety at the remaining crossings are well sup- ported by the railroad industry. Grade separation projects that eliminate at-grade crossings are also well received. The rail industry prefers overhead to undergrade structures because the maintenance of the over- head structure is almost always the responsibility of the state or local government, not of the railroad. Safety improvement initiatives at existing grade crossings where either the technology of the grade crossing protection is increased or additional protection such as the implementa- tion of four-quadrant gates is provided are good candidates for gaining the railroads’ cooperation. Four-quadrant gates seal off a vehicle’s ability to cross over the tracks. In design- ing four-quadrant gates, the highway agency should ensure that the potential for trapping vehicles between the gates is eliminated. Four-quadrant gates are associated with quietzones, which the railroads may support in cases where the zones provide greater protection than what currently exists. The Federal Railroad Administration has established new rules for quiet zones, and not in all cases will railroads sup- port the implementation of them. The railroads generally do not want to increase their liability by eliminating horns, nor do they want the additional costs associated with gating all crossings to eliminate the need for horns. Old track-circuit technology still exists at many grade cross- ings whereby the circuit does not have the ability to sense the movement or speed of the train and, consequently, the lights and gates at grade crossings may be activated long before the train reaches the grade crossing. New technology that mea- sures train speed to activate the lights and gates within approx- imately 30 seconds of the train passing over the crossing is more effective and results in fewer accidents at grade cross- ings. With such “active warning,” the liability to the railroad is reduced. This is because many crashes are caused by im- patient drivers driving around closed crossing gates. Renewal projects that secure the railroad’s right-of-way, such as adding fencing along a limited-access freeway, can increase benefits to the railroad. The benefits are limited, but they reduce exposure to the railroad and the highway agency. Safety is not limited to projects, but to the implementa- tion of the projects themselves. Before a project commences, some railroads insist that the contractor’s employees go through safety training specifically designed by the railroad company. Preconstruction meetings are held before anyone has access to the freight corridor. The railroad wants to min- imize any exposure to accidents and liability that could be caused by the contractor on the site. While this alone never ensures that an accident will not occur, it reduces the chances of one. Highway agencies that support the safety programs of the railroad will have greater success working with the railroad industry. As mentioned, the current federal limits for insurance are $2 million for an individual event and $6 million cumulative annually. The railroads frequently insist on much higher lim- its, because the current ones were set in 1982. The railroads note that their liability has increased substantially since 1982 because of increased rail traffic, greater populations near rail lines, and an increase in hazardous materials shipped. FHWA will allow federal funds to be used to pay for higher limits, but it generally requires individual, project-by-project approval. Some states, such as Illinois, Ohio, and Florida, routinely incorporate higher liability limits as a standard provision in their agreements with railroads and in their specifications for contractors bidding on such projects. These and other states have reached accommodations with the local FHWA division office to routinely approve the higher limits, thereby provid- ing the railroads the higher insurance protections their attor- neys require. These steps increase the railroad’s likelihood of

65more quickly accepting the insurance provisions within the project agreements. Both Kansas City Southern Railway and BNSF offer “riders” on their insurance coverage to contractors. The contractors can buy short-term coverage for projects that interact with these two railroads. This allows contractors to quickly iden- tify an insurance carrier and to work with a carrier who is familiar with and acceptable to the railroads. Capacity Constraints and Efficiencies One example where a railroad has a vested interest to cooper- ate with a highway agency would be when the agency seeks to repair or replace a bridge structure that limits both highway and rail traffic. If the project allows the railroad to expand its tracks, it may be attractive for the railroad to participate in funding the project. A significant disincentive for a railroad is the creation of new highway–railroad at-grade crossings. While this clearly increases safety and liability exposure to the railroad, it may also diminish the capacity of the rail corridor. For instance, if a new grade crossing divides a segment of track that previ- ously was used to stage train movements, it diminishes the railroad’s capacity. Such constraints are not widely recog- nized by the agencies that may pursue new crossing projects. In contrast, eliminating a highway–railroad grade crossing and thereby allowing trains to be staged on the track would give an operating benefit to the railroad. Grade-crossing elim- ination is not always a result of a new grade separation, but it can be part of a rail corridor project where at-grade crossings are closed and consolidated. Administrative Costs One cost that the railroads cited in the interviews was losses associated with public-project reviews. CSX reported that these losses are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annu- ally. The major reason for the loss is that some state and local agencies will not enter into agreements soon enough for the railroad to capture all its costs associated with project coor- dination. In addition, railroads are incurring the review costs, with reimbursement coming only months or even years later. Such slow payment reduces their cash flow and working cap- ital. Any early or up-front payment would be viewed posi- tively by the railroads. Amtrak and Massachusetts transportation officials have discussed reducing the additional staff time for the railroad to produce the necessary documentation for project cost reim- bursement. In the past, it was necessary to complete the doc- umentation on a specific form for employees of the railroad and for the equipment and material used. This is typical of most state agencies. Amtrak will be working with its highwayagency counterparts to accept the documentation directly from Amtrak’s payroll and material purchases in order to reduce staff time. Although Amtrak still will be able to bill only for actual costs, it should reduce the railroad’s administrative expenses. As cited earlier, the Iowa Department of Transportation has an expedited agreement process and force account reimburse- ment process for highway–railroad resurfacing projects. Although the process was developed to expedite projects, it also provides an incentive for the railroads to cooperate on re-surfacing projects. The railroads’ administrative costs are reduced because the reimbursement is based on preapproved unit prices based on the number of feet of track affected. A simple, routine agreement is used to promptly reimburse the railroad for its costs. The Ohio Department of Transportation in 2000 sought prompt reviews on approximately 30 grade-separation proj- ects it wanted to build following the breakup of Conrail. As the NS and CSX railroads absorbed the Conrail tracks, train volumes increased significantly on some Ohio lines as the railroads consolidated their operations. To ensure progress on the large program, the Ohio DOT worked closely with CSX’s and NS’s subcontracted engineering firms. The Ohio DOT received price proposals from the firms through the railroads within 30 days of notice for preliminary engineering needs. The former ODOT rail-grade separation program manager reported satisfaction with the timeliness of the reviews once the DOT made it clear what its review needs would be and that it would pay for those reviews promptly. Also as noted, the Florida DOT lowers CSX’s administrative costs by using a standard master agreement for each new proj- ect. Then, subsequent approvals for individual reviews or re- imbursements for the project can be approved with one-page addenda. The long-established practice reduces administrative costs for both the railroad and the highway agency. The Florida DOT railroad-coordination officials attribute the process to ensuring railroad cooperation on project agreements. Direct Payments to Railroads No direct monetary strategies were found to be in use by high- way agencies to provide incentives to the railroads to cooper- ate on projects. The most common practice is to reimburse the railroad for project expenses such a project reviews, flagging, and force account work conducted on behalf of highway proj- ects. The railroads all insisted that they only charge enough to cover their actual costs, so it is debatable whether cost reim- bursement is an actual benefit as opposed to simple cost recov- ery. Such work is often audited and the review of expenses creates additional administrative costs for highway agencies, the railroads, and ultimately FHWA, which covers project expenses.

66Highway agencies regularly provide incentives to other par- ties with whom they interact. Highway agencies regularly pay incentives to contractors to expedite projects. These incentives have been standardized by various contract models, such as incentives for early completion, “lane rentals,” and “A+B” bid- ding, which involves the contractor bidding both the cost of construction and the time of construction. Highway agencies also will pay slightly above appraised value for rights-of-way if the property acquisition affects the project schedule. Highway agencies also provide incentives to design agencies to provide prompt submittals. Many states also adopt a “prompt pay- ment” policy to contractors in the belief that it provides the contractors reliable cash flow, which in the long-term results in lower bid prices for the department. No similar provisions were found to be in use by highway agencies to provide incentives to the railroads. Although the Washington DOT is the only example found that involves a state agency funding a review position at a rail- road, it is common for state highway agencies to fund posi- tions at environmental resource agencies for reviews. At least 34 state transportation agencies pay for one or more positions at resource agencies, according to a study conducted for the AASHTO Environmental Center for Excellence (3). It reports a steady increase in this practice, as highway agencies seek more “streamlining” opportunities. One example of incentivizing a railroad involves the Capitol Corridor in California. More than 98% of the trains are oper- ated on time by Amtrak over the Union Pacific Railroad (UP). Over the years, the Capitol Corridor Joint Power Authority learned how to effectively incentivize the railroad and conse- quently has the highest percentage of on-time passenger trains in the country, even eclipsing Amtrak trains in the northeast corridor. UP can potentially earn $2.4 million from incentives annually. Issues Involving Specifications, Policies, and Institutional Changes In earlier sections, model processes and model agreements were described. Those model processes and model agreements included most of the changes in specifications, institutional practices, or policies that are required to streamline the proj- ect review process. In addition, several potential federal reg- ulatory and policy changes were noted. In each description of a model practice, it was stated what institutional or legal changes were necessary to implement the model process. In the large majority of cases, there were no legal impediments to the model process. Instead, impediments generally were attributable to the organizational structures and processes adopted by the highway agency or the railroad. The lack of specification changes necessary to streamline the agreement process was referenced by one of the five engi- neering firms interviewed for this project. “The engineeringis easy,” he said. In other words, the railroad–highway agree- ment process generally breaks down because of a lack of com- munication, a lack of understanding, cost disputes, liability disputes, and other issues unrelated to engineering or speci- fications. Once the parameters of the other issues are agreed to, the engineering details and construction specifications are readily apparent in the design manuals, calculations, and pro- fessional practices that have long existed in civil engineering. Although disputes over bridge size or span length were occa- sionally cited by all parties, disputes over bridge design or specifications seldom were listed as an impediment to the agreement process. In short, specifications and policies were not frequently cited as impediments, although institutional practices and institutional attitudes frequently were. A caveat to the statement that specifications are not an impediment is that highway agencies that do not frequently deal with railroads can be surprised by the more robust design standards insisted on by railroads. For instance, differing from highway agencies, the railroads • Generally do not accept mechanically stabilized earth walls, which are common in highway construction; • Require shoring around excavation in railroad embank- ments; and • Require more robust 100-year bridge designs for railroad bridges as opposed to lesser standards for highway bridges. Arguably, relaxing these construction specifications could save the highway agency money in the construction phase. However, the railroads have adopted these standards for their own projects as part of an engineering philosophy to ensure that bridges and embankments last indefinitely under the greater loads and stresses caused by trains. Unlike highway agencies, the railroads generally design for longer service life and reduce their need for maintenance on the densely used railways. These specifications imposed on highway projects are the same specifications imposed on their own projects to cope with their operating environment. Highway networks have many alternate routes and significant redundancy when maintenance occurs. Railroad networks have fewer alternate routes and less redundancy, therefore they design projects to reduce the frequency of maintenance. Suggested New Specifications, Policies, and Procedures Although no changes in statute or regulation are required to adopt the model processes and practices, some changes in spec- ifications, policies, and procedures could be helpful toward facilitating greater railroad–highway cooperation and toward procedurally supporting the cooperative, partnering processes envisioned in the model processes. This section identifies what

67new specifications, administrative rules, or procedures could contribute to an enhanced environment of partnering in the highway–railroad process. Planning and Coordination Eligibility Policy Most highway–railroad projects are sponsored by state high- way agencies and the majority of those projects are federally funded. State highway budgets have become seriously strained in recent years. As a result, limited state funds are used for activities that are not federally eligible, such as conducting basic highway maintenance, plowing snow, and conducting routine administrative functions not specifically linked to an eligible federal project or activity. If states had abundant funds, they could spend them flexibly on project coordination and partnering activities. However, as state funds are severely lim- ited, many states are constrained in their project-development activities to those activities and procedures that are eligible for federal reimbursement. The federal reimbursement eligibility is currently limited to preliminary engineering and planning activities that are tied to a specific project. If federal “construction” funds are used for a planning activity and a specific project is not con- structed as a result, the state highway agency could be com- pelled to repay the federal funds. The federal “repayment” can be virtually automatic in that the federal agency can sim- ply withhold a like amount of funding from the state’s cur- rent annual federal apportionment. Although it happens rarely, such repayment is a real possibility and serves as a serious factor on the states’ considerations and approaches to project-coordination activities. The types of federal funds that states may typically use for highway–railroad projects but are not eligible for general coordination or “partnering” would include the largest federal categories, such as the Surface Transportation Program, Bridge Program, National Highway System Funds, Interstate Maintenance Program, and the Highway Safety Improvement Program. These funds generally make up the largest categories of a state’s construc- tion program. Other categories of federal funds are eligible for general types of planning activities and coordination. However, they are not eligible for project-specific coordination. Funds such as State Planning and Research and Surface Transportation Program planning set-aside funds can be used for ongoing planning, research, or coordination activities. Discussion by state and federal agencies of eligibility for the general highway–railroad coordination process could poten- tially assist this same process. Activities under the model processes that could benefit from funding eligibility could include the following: • Paying for the position of highway agency–railroad liaison. The costs of staff, office, overhead, and travel attributable tothe highway–railroad partnering process could be more easily accommodated by the states if they had available funding. Analogous to this eligibility is the eligibility of costs for ongoing coordination of activities between high- way agencies and metropolitan planning organizations, and the eligibility of staff positions funded at federal environmen- tal resource agencies. In both cases, general staff activities are eligible for federal reimbursement in order to encour- age the ongoing coordination of highway activities with outside entities. • Similarly, the travel costs associated with the annual or quarterly highway agency–railroad coordination meetings could be made federally eligible. Again, the ability to cover these costs with federal funds could encourage the conduct of these valuable process-improvement sessions. • The cost of creating and sustaining a central repository like- wise could be made federally eligible. Accounting Rules Requirements A related change that could assist the partnering process is the development of a joint recommendation from the Class I rail- roads, representative state highway agencies, and the Federal Highway Administration on eligible reimbursement costs under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR (48 CFR 1–53) governs how cost-accounting is to be con- ducted on federal aid projects. The rules are not written specifically for railroad cost recovery. At least one of the Class I railroads said the cost-accounting rules are cumbersome for the railroads and have led to delays and uncertainty. Devel- oping FAR rules specific to the highway–railroad agreement process could further expedite the billing and reimbursement processes. Similarly, the railroads that participate in streamlined agreements could review their accounting procedures to ensure they are clearly segregating the project review costs. Avoidance of inflated overhead costs from other depart- ments and divisions for the project review and partnering process would provide assurances to the state highway agen- cies. During the course of the interviews, state officials com- plained of receiving vague or seemingly inflated invoices from railroads for project-coordination activities. Costs of meals, travel, overhead, and other expenses were not clearly delineated, some state officials said. They said such undocu- mented costs not only delayed payments but also under- mined a sense of trust. Cost of Capital Calculation Although largely deregulated, the Class I railroads are subject to decisions and rule making by the Surface Transportation Board (STB). One important determination by the STB is in

68regards to the railroads’ cost of capital. The STB uses the cost of capital figure in evaluating the adequacy of individual rail- roads’ revenues each year. The figure is also used in maximum rate cases, feeder-line applications, rail line abandonments, trackage rights cases, rail-merger reviews, and more generally in the STB’s Uniform Rail Costing System (4). Although the costs of providing highway–railroad project reviews and agreements are a relatively small part of the Class I railroads’ operations, it would be consistent with the partner- ing process to ensure that railroad costs and railroad income from the project review agreements are accurately captured by the STB in the cost of capital calculations. Long-Range Expansion Plans Notification A consistent complaint from state DOTs was railroads requir- ing additional track expansion to be accommodated in con- struction plans. This can result in greater bridge span lengths and other changes that can significantly affect the cost of highway projects. These requests often surprised state offi- cials, because the existing number of tracks at a specific loca- tion had been stable for years, if not decades. As they prepared to improve the highway across such tracks, they were sur- prised to learn that they had to accommodate significantly more expensive requirements than they anticipated. Several state officials suggested it would be helpful if the Class I railroads provided guidance as to their long-term plans for railway expansion. The officials suggested that knowing how many tracks and how many sidings were anticipated could help them as they planned the cost of highway improvements. The railroads countered that their business plans seldom extended beyond five years, making it difficult to create mean- ingful forecasts of expansions. They noted that their business is reactive to shippers’ needs. If a major customer goes out of busi- ness, relocates, or expands in the future, it would have a major impact on the need for trackage and sidings. Such changes are difficult, if not impossible, for the railroads to predict. In addi- tion, they said publicly providing such proprietary information would require them to share company plans with competitors. At the same time, the Class I railroads are increasingly seek- ing federal funds for expansion purposes. When state highway agencies and metropolitan planning organizations receive fed- eral transportation funds, they are required to produce short- and long-range transportation plans that specify how they will be developing their transportation systems. Requiring the rail- roads to produce similar information would be congruent with past transportation policy. Complex Right-of-Way Appraisal Process The value of railroad rights-of-way can be complex to appraise, particularly for such values as air rights in dense downtowns.The state highway agencies are restricted in their ability to negotiate the value of such properties because they operate within the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. The act balances the property owner’s rights to fair market value with the need to protect the fed- eral taxpayer from states paying exorbitant prices to prop- erty owners. The act requires states to hire neutral appraisers to assess the value of rights-of-way before making an offer. The appraisal is based on comparable market prices for compara- ble real estate transactions. Because there is not a widely traded market for railroad rights-of-way or air rights, it can be diffi- cult and subjective to determine the comparable fair-market value for such railroad property. Highway agencies reported several times during the research for this project that negoti- ating such values became contentious and led to significant project delays. They complained of the railroads seeking unreasonable compensation for such property or air rights. The railroads noted they had paid taxes for some of the prop- erty for decades and were seeking value for the shareholders’ past outlays. A policy that could be reviewed is the appraisal process for complex railroad properties. Research into how to appraise air rights and other atypical properties could result in amended approaches for appraising, negotiating, and securing such properties, thereby reducing another source of project delay. New professional practices for valuing railroad air rights could provide a basis for agreement by all parties. Highway Agency Project Design Processes It was stressed repeatedly by the railroads and by the engi- neering firms that represent them that plan development that adheres to railroad standards is crucial to reduce delays. Despite all good intentions and partnering agreements, in the end, the set of plans sent to the railroad must meet the railroad’s acceptance. An institutional practice and policy that may need to change to expedite project reviews is the incorporation of railroad standards and railroad formats into all plans submitted to the railroads for review. Highway agencies for decades have had design manuals and design policies. What some state highway agencies such as Texas, Washington, Ohio, and others have done is to create subsets of those design manuals that specifi- cally address the necessary submittals and procedures for railroad projects. These institutional practices are devised to ensure that the most typical types of project impediments are clearly anticipated and addressed in each submittal to the railroad. The four largest Class I railroads have produced substan- tial volumes of standard drawings, standard contract lan- guage, construction provisions, and other documentation to assist the designer and the project sponsor to anticipate the

69railroads’ requirements. The total volume of these reports extends into hundreds of pages and includes considerable detail beyond that appropriate for this report. Each railroad’s website includes draft agreements, standard drawings, and design standards to simplify the design and review process. An institutional policy and practice change that could be considered by the highway agencies is to develop their own manual which is predicated on the standards and provi- sions provided by the railroads with which they most com- monly conduct business. These state manuals then could be incorporated into the contracts of consulting engineers who are selected to produce plans for railroad–highway projects. Interviews with the railroads, their consulting firms, and the state highway agencies indicated that the following types of issues were among the most common ones that led to project review delay. Therefore, it would be an advisable practice to include in the state-specific manuals guidance to avoid delays and conflicts over these most typical issues: • Horizontal and vertical clearance; • Bridge type selection; • Accommodating the operating envelope (or window) and closures during construction; • Contractor control by railroad in regards to safety and rail- road operations; • Shoring near embankment; • Boring, tunneling, pipe, and wire beneath railways; • Early flagging notice; • Safety training of state and contractor staff; • Road master’s control of construction; • Control of equipment adjacent to track; • Guarantee that all rights-of-way and property will be left in good condition; and • Ensuring that all utilities or other property in railroad rights-of-way are protected. Suggested Institutional Performance Measures Earlier, model processes were identified, including ones to continuously improve the project review process. Also, model agreements were provided to memorialize the model processes, including those processes to continuously improve performance. Performance measures and other strategies for monitoring success are suggested in the model processes and the memo- randum of understanding. Such performance measures should vary based on the type and complexity of agreements. Rela- tively simple projects, such as re-surfacing agreements or the maintenance of safety appurtenances such as lights and gates, do not have lengthy and numerous stages of development.However, a highway relocation project that significantly impacts railroad operations and rights-of-way could have many individual stages and multiple reviews. The performance measures suggested below include all measures necessary for a complex project. A subset of these measures could be selected for use on less complex projects. The following are suggested performance measures related to cycle times: • Time from project programming to time for first notifica- tion of railroad; • Time to process preliminary engineering agreement from time sent to railroad; • Whether railroad comments are returned within 60 days of Stage 1 or 30% plan completion; • Whether railroad comments are returned within 60 days of Stage 2 or 60% plan completion; and • Whether railroad comments are returned within 60 days of Stage 3 or 90% plan completion. The following are suggested performance measures related to plan quality: • Whether changes in bridge type, size, roadway line, or grade or drainage structures or limits are requested after initial coordination; • Whether project bid letting is delayed by requested railroad changes; • Whether expected completion date is delayed by railroad issues; and • Number of railroad interventions with contractor activi- ties related to safety or railroad operations. The following is a suggested performance measure related to cost: • Total annual cost in hours, consultant costs, and overhead for administering railroad agreements. The suggested performance measures are intended to provide insight into the timeliness, quality, and cost of the railroad–highway agreement process. As always with per- formance measures, the measures are intended to provide a “dashboard” of the agreement process and not to provide exhaustive details of each function. If the “dashboard” indi- cates a problem with performance, the highway and railroad liaisons can evaluate the causes and, if necessary, address them at the annual meeting or other joint forum. The intent of the performance measures is to complement the continuous- improvement process by providing common data for the evaluation of current performance against past performance and desired performance.

70Suggested Practices to Accommodate Design-Build The project request for proposal (RFP) makes specific refer- ence to identifying barriers to effectiveness and to proposed remedies. The RFP also makes a brief but specific reference to alternative project delivery techniques, such as the use of design-build. This section provides a brief guidance on how to incorporate design-build into the railroad-agreement process. “Design-build,” according to a report published by the AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on Design-Build (5), “is a project delivery method under which a project owner, having defined its initial expectations to a certain extent, executes a single contract for both architectural/engineering services and construction.” Design-build is pursued instead of the traditional design- bid-build for several reasons. The need to accelerate project delivery is a common reason. Another is the hope to encour- age innovation between designers and contractors if they are given more latitude to innovate. A third reason is a desire to save costs on the assumption that faster, more innovative construction with fewer design details may be more econom- ical. Complaints about design-build are that government control is lessened. Common concerns are that design-build could lead to substandard construction, a lack of adherence to regulations, a lack of protection of right-of-way owners, less adherence to environmental constraints, or indifference to common purchasing requirements by the contractor. In more precise and prescriptive design-bid-build contracts, the highway agency produces a more detailed set of construction plans that include precise details as to how the contractor will comply with numerous regulations or commitments. In both instances, the contractor faces certain constraints. Even in a loosely defined design-build contract, the contrac- tor must comply with all environmental statutes, right-of- way laws, and utility relocations and generally must comply with standard highway agency provisions, such as mainte- nance of traffic standards. Therefore, even in design-build, the contractor has less-than-free-rein to operate and must accept the risk that assumptions he made about how he would address such requirements may be challenged during construction. Design-build is a variant but is not fundamentally different from the design-bid-build process. A design is produced in design-build, but to a lesser degree of detail. It must result in the construction of pavements, bridges, drainage structures, geometrics, lighting, signage, appurtenances, right-of-way acquisition, and environmental permitting, all of which must comport with professional standards, statutes, and regulations. What differs is the timing of the approvals and the shifting of risk. In design-build, the contractor assumes additional risk as to the timing of the approvals and the degree to which railroadrequirements may vary from the roadway and bridge assump- tions which he/she assumed in the contract. Provisions for managing the timing and risk need to be incorporated. Design-build projects involving railroads are similar to design-build projects that require more complex environmen- tal approvals or permits. In these cases, outside agencies have significant control over certain design and construction ele- ments. These agencies’ considerations need to be incorporated into the design, schedule, and construction of the projects. Such examples include the following: • The need for environmental approval on alignments and impacts; • Timing construction activities so that aquatic and terres- trial resources are protected during certain annual cycles, such as spawning runs or birthing seasons; and • Various permits for stream work or wetland impacts that are required but cannot be obtained until after the contrac- tor has produced detailed plans. Similarly, the design-build contract needs to include provi- sions to accommodate the timing, risk, and uncertainty caused by railroad reviews. Strategies, tactics, and contract provisions to do so can include the following: • The highway agency requiring certain parameters as to bridge type and roadway alignment be determined before bidding the design-build project. The highway agency may need to coordinate in advance with the railroad as to type, size, line, and grade of the structure and include those parameters as given in the design-build contract. In many design-build cases, the highway agency has secured environ- mental approval already before bidding the design-build contract. The environmental approval generally requires sufficient detail that approximately 30% plan completion is required. Those 30% plans, or Stage 1 plans, will need to include an alignment, grade, and bridge type, which can be coordinated with the railroad for concurrence. The determi- nation of bridge type and alignment can be incorporated as a controlling factor in the design-build bid documents. • The highway agency needs to ensure additional coordina- tion with the railroad during project development by the contractor. As with environmental and permit requirements that are included as restrictions on the contractors in design-build projects, certain restrictions regarding rail- road coordination will need to be included in design-build projects involving the railroad. During the design process, the contractor will need to include time for the review of the 60% and 90% plans by the railroad. The railroad should reciprocate in the partnering environment by ensuring timely reviews to the contractor’s submittals. Considering the advance coordination conducted by the highway agency

71and the railroad under their partnering framework, and the review of the 30% plan submittal as part of the environ- mental process, the basic design parameters should have been agreed to before the bidding process. The contractor will need to coordinate the details of Stage 2 and Stage 3 design details with the railroad. It will be incumbent on the highway agency, the railroad, and the contractor’s design- ers to conduct regular coordination calls. (It should be noted that in design-build projects, the contractor will not be producing complete Stage 2 and Stage 3 plans. However, the contractor will be addressing the types of design details that generally are in Stage 2 and Stage 3 plans. It is those details that need to be coordinated.) Sustaining Best Practices and Model Processes This report illustrates the best practices and model agreements used nationally to streamline the railroad–highway agreement process and to encourage partnering between highway agencies and railroads. This section examines several potential means to sustain and update these model agreements and practices beyond the period of this research project. Necessary Activities to Sustain Agreements The activities necessary to sustain and update model agree- ments and practices would include the following at a minimum: • Creating a virtual library, website, or other repository of various project agreements, contracts, standard drawings, provisions, presentations, and related materials that sup- port the development of model agreements and practices. • Developing a means to refresh and update these materials in ways such as • Updating internet addresses to links; • Removing outdated materials; and • Posting new standards and requirements. • Creating actual or virtual ongoing communication between the state and local highway agencies and the railroads to continually share new best practices, problems, solutions, and innovations to the agreement process. • Sustaining dialogue between state and local officials and their railroad counterparts with other governmental stakeholders such as the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, possibly the Surface Transporta- tion Board, and often state utility commissions in those states in which commissions play a role in the agreement process. • Bringing together periodically in a formal, facilitated forum—either in person or virtually—a cross section of practitioners from the state and local agencies, the rail- roads, and the utility commissions to exchange ideas andbest practices and to identify common initiatives that would benefit the process. These needed activities have parallels in many professional- development or trade association activities. The following examples are explored below: • Joint funding of a website or repository by the involved parties; • Developing a subcommittee within AASHTO; • Creating a subcommittee or task force within the Trans- portation Research Board; • Creating a new nonprofit organization funded by all parties devoted to supporting this process; • Seeking government funding to create a unit within a uni- versity devoted to supporting this process; • Creating a staff position or office within a federal agency to sustain the efforts; • Creating a joint committee or group from AASHTO, AAR, AREMA, and the involved federal agencies; and • Relying on voluntary activities of the involved parties to host meetings, distribute materials, and create a repository of documents. Create a Best Practices Repository Throughout the interviews for this project, stakeholders were asked if a central repository of best-practice materials would be useful. Universally, they agreed that it would. The types of materials that have been gathered for this project and that could be assembled into a virtual, online repository to benefit the practitioners includes the following: • Current links to each of the websites hosted by the Class I railroads that are devoted to providing the railroads’ indi- vidual draft agreements, standard drawings, permits, man- uals, standard construction provisions, and other materials. Each state and local highway agency probably is familiar with these websites for the railroads with which they rou- tinely work. However, convenient access to other railroads’ sites provides them broader examples of best practices that they could pursue. • Other resource documents, such as the final report of this effort, railroad agreement manuals from the various states, materials from related NHI courses, sample partnering agreements, and links to related sites such as the Project Management Institute, which promote best practices in project delivery. • Access to ongoing dialogue between practitioners. This dialogue could be in the form of posting of online ques- tions and responses, frequently asked questions, posting of presentations, and other information that give a practi- tioner access to current thinking within the field.

72• Links to federal regulations that frequently influence the process. These links could be to federal statutes, the Code of Federal Regulations, accounting standards in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, policies of FHWA and FRA, and other sources. Again, all these sources currently can be found on the web. However, they are not assembled in one web- site for convenient access. It is beyond the scope of this task to prepare a formal esti- mate of cost or level of effort for such a resource. It is safe to assume that at least one person’s effort for 6 months would be necessary to develop such a site. Then several months of effort annually would be necessary to sustain such a site. Such sites quickly can become obsolete as elements change, such as URLs, new federal regulations, updated manuals and so forth. Within a year or less, such a site could have substantial out- of-date materials if not continually updated. In addition, the costs of hosting the site on a robust server must be covered. There are many such sites covering virtually every profes- sional field. They often are funded by trade associations, joint efforts by interested parties, federal grants, university research institutes, and other professional bodies. Such a site for railroad–highway agreements would be congruent with current professional practice and with the suggestions offered by stakeholders interviewed for this project. Form an AASHTO Subcommittee The American Association of State Highway and Transporta- tion Officials has approximately 42 committees and subcom- mittees. These cover a diverse array of professional activities, from the Standing Committee on Highways with its 16 sub- committees to the Standing Committee on Planning, the Standing Committee on Rail Transportation, and the Standing Committee on Public Transportation. In addition, AASHTO has two joint committees with outside industry groups, the AASHTO Joint Committee with the Associated General Con- tractors and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association and the AASHTO Joint Committee with the Amer- ican Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). These various committees facilitate dialogue with outside entities in two primary ways. First, many of the committees and subcommittees invite private-sector or other public- sector groups to attend their meetings and to help them develop new standards, specifications, and procedures. For instance, representatives of roadway and bridge design firms attend meetings of the Subcommittee on Design or the Sub- committee on Bridges and Structures. Through their atten- dance, the professional engineering firms keep abreast of changing standards and participate in groups to develop the standards. Likewise, in the joint AASHTO-ACEC commit- tee, the organizations collaborate on supporting legislation,adopting common accounting standards for federal reim- bursement of design work, and in general keeping one another apprised of the other’s position on common issues. Such dialogue between multiple groups is necessary to sus- tain innovation in the highway–railroad agreement process. The parties of highway agencies, railroads, engineering firms, and federal officials need a means and forum to continue dialogue. Closely analogous to the highway–railroad agreement process is the process by which states acquire rights-of-way and relocate utilities necessary to construct highway projects. In the right-of-way and utility process, the highway agencies work within federal statutes to acquire the property, services, and cooperation of outside entities, either property owners or utility companies. The right-of-way and utility process can be a common source of concern among highway project man- agers because of its ability to significantly delay projects or increase their cost. The AASHTO Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utilities addresses functions of collaboration and process improvement similar to the best practices described regard- ing the railroad–highway agreement process. The mission of the Subcommittee on Right-of-Way and Utilities says in part: The subcommittee shall review the laws and regulations of the Federal Government, member states and territories per- taining to public acquisition and management of real property for transportation related purposes. The subcommittee will review issues related to the placement of utilities on highway rights-of-way. It shall provide a forum for the exchange of experiences, innovations and best practices; and will recom- mend such laws, rules, regulations, and procedures so as to improve the quality and efficiency of Right of Way and Utility operating practices. . . . The subcommittee may establish liaison relationships with appropriate offices of the Federal Highway Administration and such other entities having a role and responsibility in the area of Right of Way and Utilities. (emphasis added) Establishing an AASHTO Subcommittee on Railroad– Highway Institutional Mitigation or a Subcommittee on Rail- road Coordination could be a means to sustain continuous improvement in the railroad–highway agreement process. First, it would create a structure with members, a mission, duties, and resources that could be devoted to the topic of improving the railroad–highway agreement process. Second, AASHTO provides to its committees and subcommittees staff support. These staff become quite knowledgeable about the subject matter and help disseminate information to new members as state members change through turnover in the state depart- ments. Third, the committees and subcommittees often invite their counterparts from the Federal Highway Administration,

73the Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, or other agencies with which they regularly interact to meetings, which provide formal and informal opportunities for state and federal cooperation. Fourth, the private sector participants are often invited. In the case of this suggested committee, the public projects managers of the Class I railroads and short lines could be invited to participate. This participation ensures opportunity for dialogue. Fifth, these committees often publish best-practice documents and sponsor federally funded transportation research into best practices, standards, and specifications. Sixth, these commit- tees and subcommittees often post information on AASHTO websites, which provide a means for further dissemination of best practices and standards. Creating such an AASHTO subcommittee would face sev- eral hurdles. First, it increases costs to AASHTO, which must be covered through membership dues, the sale of AASHTO products, or other revenue sources. Second, AASHTO’s mem- bers are increasingly challenged to be allowed to travel to out- of-state meetings because of tight state budgets. In its recent strategic plan, AASHTO identified lack of travel as a major impediment to ongoing collaboration and committee func- tioning. Third, strong support for such a subcommittee would have to be generated by the AASHTO board of directors, who are the same members who have noted their inability to allow out-of-state staff travel. Accommodating the cost of such a group would have to be addressed, in all likelihood, to gener- ate the board of directors’ support. One possible option is to maximize the conduct of virtual meetings of this hypothetical new subcommittee. AASHTO’s strategic plan anticipates the expanded use of web-enabled conference calls, webinars, websites, and other virtual means to create ongoing dialogue and exchange of information for training, development of standards, and other forms of pro- fessional development. Create a TRB Group Similar to the formation of an AASHTO group would be the formation of a committee, subcommittee, or task force within the Transportation Research Board. TRB has more than 200 committees and task forces involving more than 4,000 trans- portation professionals. These groups exist to advance the state of the practice in transportation. The committees address many issues comparable to the highway–railroad agreement process. For instance, there is a Committee on Utilities, which is con- cerned with the interrelationships between transportation sys- tems and utilities, including the accommodation of utilities in transportation corridors and rights-of-way. Creating a com- mittee, subcommittee, or task group would provide a forum for ongoing research, publication, and cooperation. The roles of committees are:• Stimulating research by developing and publishing research problem statements, issuing calls for papers, submitting research problem statements to the NCHRP and TCRP, and defining and publishing critical issues and research needs; • Keeping the transportation community apprised of recent and ongoing research through sessions at TRB annual meet- ings, specialty conferences and workshops, committee meetings, informal networking, responses to requests for information, and referrals to other experts; • Synthesizing and disseminating research results through sponsorship of workshops and conferences, compilation of bibliographies, and publication of compendiums of research papers and state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice reports; • Reviewing and recommending research papers for publi- cation by TRB and for TRB-sponsored awards; • Cosponsoring special activities and providing liaison with other transportation-oriented agencies in the United States and in other countries; and • Encouraging participation in TRB by students and profes- sionals entering the transportation field. The TRB Technical Activities Leadership Guide says that subcommittees are less formal than standing committees or task forces. A subcommittee may be formed by a standing committee to address one or more specific aspects of a com- mittee’s work. A joint subcommittee may be formed by mul- tiple committees to address one or more areas of common interest among the committees. Joint subcommittees can be useful in addressing areas that cut across multiple commit- tees, sections, and groups. Subcommittee appointments are for the period necessary to complete the assignment. All sub- committees should be discharged when they have completed their assignments. A TRB task force addresses either a specific, well-defined problem or a task that encompasses the scope of more than one unit. A task force may be proposed by several organiza- tions within the TRB hierarchy. Criteria for considering the formation of a task force include the following: • Clarity of scope and task (a specific and concise description is needed that clearly defines the scope and task of the pro- posed task force); • Evidence of need, demand, and potential accomplishment; • Evidence of uniqueness; and • Clear indication of planned activities. However, as with AASHTO subcommittees, TRB groups also face the challenge of finding sponsorship, generating support, and sustaining a commitment from volunteers that they will be able to secure travel approval to attend meetings.

74Create a Federal Office The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration have dozens of individual offices devoted to improving transportation practices or conditions on the trans- portation system. Creating an office to oversee and improve the highway–railroad coordination process would be a possi- bility to consider. The creation of such an office would create a strong focus, provide official sanction to the improvement process, provide resources such as staff and websites, and gen- erate a means to nationally distribute best practices and model agreements. The hurdles, however, are considerable. The primary hur- dle is the cost of creating a new federal office during a time of considerable constraint in transportation receipts and enor- mous demands on transportation budgets. The highway trust fund is facing a deficit and lacks a long-term source of rev- enue to sustain authorized expenditure levels. Creating a new federal office in the current fiscal climate probably would be difficult. Form a Community of Interest or Association A potential solution that requires no formal approval by a national organization or federal agency is the creation of a joint committee, “community of interest,” or nonprofit associa- tion between motivated highway agencies and railroads to voluntarily meet, share best practices, and distribute model processes. Such an effort is likely to capture the interest of the most motivated members of highway agencies and railroads who seek to improve the agreement process. Such communities of interest sometimes form associations that are supported by dues from members. One analogous group is the North American Rail Shippers Association, which lists the following as its objectives: • To provide a common meeting ground between rail own- ers, vendors, and users to establish transportation require- ments and ensure a smooth transition from the present era to the future in the rail industry. • To promote operating efficiency in the handling of rail equipment. • To give the shipping public a direct voice in the activities of the railroads on matters of mutual concern. • To provide educational forums and seminars for the pur- pose of establishing and maintaining an understanding of shipper and receiver requirements and carrier innovations. • To offer continuing-education programs designed to im- prove individual business and professional skills. The North American Rail Shippers Association brings together rail shippers with the railroads to address commonissues, although from different institutional perspectives. Like- wise, it is conceivable that if interest were strong enough, highway agencies and the railroads could contribute dues to create an organization to sustain improvements in the proj- ect agreement process and to periodically bring all parties together in conferences and forums. The impediments to such an organization are primarily in three areas. First, it would take active leadership from some unidentified segment of the highway community or railroads to organize such an undertaking. Secondly, the same con- straints on funding and travel that would impede participa- tion in an AASHTO subcommittee or TRB committee would face the members of such a public–private group as they con- sider membership dues and costs of conferences. Third, the legal issues of who would be the officers of such a formal non- profit organization and how they would manage its ongoing operations are unclear. It is unlikely that state agencies would be able to commit to the long-term payment of dues or to participating in fiduciary management of an outside group. One of the impediments of the railroad-agreement process today is the ongoing turnover among the agency participants. It is uncertain how board members and officers for a perma- nent body could be found. Create a Joint Industry Committee A variation on these options is to create a joint committee of members from the involved associations. AASHTO, the Association of American Railroads, and the American Rail- way Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association all have members who are interested in expediting the project agreement process. Each of the three organizations has com- mittees and joint committees. They could form a joint com- mittee that meets periodically to advance the state of practice in this field. All three have access to websites that could host materials relevant to the processes. The advantages of this option are that it could be accom- plished by the three organizations without need of approval by a federal agency or by TRB. The disadvantages are that it faces all the same limitations on travel as the AASHTO sub- committees or TRB committees. It also would rely on consid- erable effort by volunteers. Create an Academic Institute Within U.S. colleges and universities are hundreds of institutes devoted to the advancement of, and research in, a large num- ber of disciplines. In the transportation sector alone are insti- tutes in the areas of construction management, transportation planning, congestion analysis, pavement preservation, and highway safety. Many of these organizations are jointly funded by the universities, private-sector trade associations, the federal

75agencies, congressional earmarks, and federal research funds that state highway agencies pass through to the institutes. One analogous institute is the National Center for Pave- ment Preservation at Michigan State University. It was estab- lished by Michigan State University and the Foundation for Pavement Preservation to lead collaborative efforts among government, industry, and academia in the advancement of pavement preservation. Its purpose is to advance and improve pavement preservation practices through education, research, and outreach. A similar institute or center to promote the advancement of project agreements could be proposed to be housed at a neu- tral, engineering-focused university. Potential funding sources could be the state highway agencies through their extensive federally funded research programs, contributions from the engineering firms who design such projects, the railroads, and the federal highway and rail offices.References 1. Lambert, D. M., and A. M. Knemeyer. We’re in This Together. Har- vard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 12, Dec. 2004, pp. 114–122, 150. 2. Kanter, R. M. Collaborative Advantage: The Art of Alliances. Har- vard Business Review, Vol. 72, No. 4, July–August 1994, pp. 96–108. 3. DOT-Funded Positions and Other Support to Resource and Regulatory Agencies, Tribes, and Non-Governmental Organizations for Environ- mental Stewardship and Streamlining Initiatives. AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence, Washington, D.C., May 2005. http:// environment.transportation.org/center/products_programs/dot_ funded.aspx. Accessed March 10, 2010. 4. Surface Transportation Board. Surface Transportation Board Revises Its Cost of Capital Methodology. News release, Jan. 28, 2009. www.stb.dot.gov/newsrels.nsf/cee25ffbd056e9d1852565330043f0d6 /3551c8b4a52126478525754c0072c406?OpenDocument. Accessed March 10, 2010. 5. AASHTOJointTechnicalCommitteeonDesign-Build.Current Design- Build Practices for Transportation Projects. http://designbuild.trans portation.org/?siteid=63&pageid=1226. Accessed May 21, 2009.

Next: Appendix A - Railroad Processes for Addressing Agreements »
Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Report S2-R16-RR-1: Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads examines the process by which highway agencies and railroads develop agreements for highway projects which interact with railways. The report examines the underlying causes of delay in the project-agreement process and developed model processes to address them.

Appendix C of SHRP 2 Report S2-R16-RR-1 is available online in Microsoft Word format.

An e-book version of this report is available for purchase at Google, Amazon, and iTunes.

SHRP 2 Renewal Project R16 also developed two supplemental reports, one report about establishing a collaborative forum between transportation agencies and railroads and another report about the development of tools in this project.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!