Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 66
66
Highway agencies regularly provide incentives to other par- is easy," he said. In other words, the railroadhighway agree-
ties with whom they interact. Highway agencies regularly pay ment process generally breaks down because of a lack of com-
incentives to contractors to expedite projects. These incentives munication, a lack of understanding, cost disputes, liability
have been standardized by various contract models, such as disputes, and other issues unrelated to engineering or speci-
incentives for early completion, "lane rentals," and "A+B" bid- fications. Once the parameters of the other issues are agreed
ding, which involves the contractor bidding both the cost of to, the engineering details and construction specifications are
construction and the time of construction. Highway agencies readily apparent in the design manuals, calculations, and pro-
also will pay slightly above appraised value for rights-of-way if fessional practices that have long existed in civil engineering.
the property acquisition affects the project schedule. Highway Although disputes over bridge size or span length were occa-
agencies also provide incentives to design agencies to provide sionally cited by all parties, disputes over bridge design or
prompt submittals. Many states also adopt a "prompt pay- specifications seldom were listed as an impediment to the
ment" policy to contractors in the belief that it provides the agreement process. In short, specifications and policies were
contractors reliable cash flow, which in the long-term results not frequently cited as impediments, although institutional
in lower bid prices for the department. practices and institutional attitudes frequently were.
No similar provisions were found to be in use by highway A caveat to the statement that specifications are not an
agencies to provide incentives to the railroads. impediment is that highway agencies that do not frequently
Although the Washington DOT is the only example found deal with railroads can be surprised by the more robust design
that involves a state agency funding a review position at a rail- standards insisted on by railroads. For instance, differing
road, it is common for state highway agencies to fund posi- from highway agencies, the railroads
tions at environmental resource agencies for reviews. At least
34 state transportation agencies pay for one or more positions · Generally do not accept mechanically stabilized earth walls,
at resource agencies, according to a study conducted for the which are common in highway construction;
AASHTO Environmental Center for Excellence (3). It reports a · Require shoring around excavation in railroad embank-
steady increase in this practice, as highway agencies seek more
ments; and
"streamlining" opportunities.
· Require more robust 100-year bridge designs for railroad
One example of incentivizing a railroad involves the Capitol
bridges as opposed to lesser standards for highway bridges.
Corridor in California. More than 98% of the trains are oper-
ated on time by Amtrak over the Union Pacific Railroad (UP).
Arguably, relaxing these construction specifications could
Over the years, the Capitol Corridor Joint Power Authority
save the highway agency money in the construction phase.
learned how to effectively incentivize the railroad and conse-
However, the railroads have adopted these standards for their
quently has the highest percentage of on-time passenger trains
own projects as part of an engineering philosophy to ensure
in the country, even eclipsing Amtrak trains in the northeast
corridor. UP can potentially earn $2.4 million from incentives that bridges and embankments last indefinitely under the
annually. 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
Issues Involving railways. These specifications imposed on highway projects
Specifications, Policies, are the same specifications imposed on their own projects to
and Institutional Changes cope with their operating environment. Highway networks
In earlier sections, model processes and model agreements have many alternate routes and significant redundancy when
were described. Those model processes and model agreements maintenance occurs. Railroad networks have fewer alternate
included most of the changes in specifications, institutional routes and less redundancy, therefore they design projects to
practices, or policies that are required to streamline the proj- reduce the frequency of maintenance.
ect review process. In addition, several potential federal reg-
ulatory and policy changes were noted. In each description Suggested New
of a model practice, it was stated what institutional or legal Specifications, Policies,
changes were necessary to implement the model process. In and Procedures
the large majority of cases, there were no legal impediments
to the model process. Instead, impediments generally were Although no changes in statute or regulation are required to
attributable to the organizational structures and processes adopt the model processes and practices, some changes in spec-
adopted by the highway agency or the railroad. ifications, policies, and procedures could be helpful toward
The lack of specification changes necessary to streamline facilitating greater railroadhighway cooperation and toward
the agreement process was referenced by one of the five engi- procedurally supporting the cooperative, partnering processes
neering firms interviewed for this project. "The engineering envisioned in the model processes. This section identifies what
OCR for page 67
67
new specifications, administrative rules, or procedures could the highwayrailroad partnering process could be more
contribute to an enhanced environment of partnering in the easily accommodated by the states if they had available
highwayrailroad process. funding. Analogous to this eligibility is the eligibility of
costs for ongoing coordination of activities between high-
Planning and Coordination Eligibility Policy way agencies and metropolitan planning organizations, and
the eligibility of staff positions funded at federal environmen-
Most highwayrailroad projects are sponsored by state high- tal resource agencies. In both cases, general staff activities
way agencies and the majority of those projects are federally are eligible for federal reimbursement in order to encour-
funded. State highway budgets have become seriously strained age the ongoing coordination of highway activities with
in recent years. As a result, limited state funds are used for outside entities.
activities that are not federally eligible, such as conducting · Similarly, the travel costs associated with the annual or
basic highway maintenance, plowing snow, and conducting quarterly highway agencyrailroad coordination meetings
routine administrative functions not specifically linked to an could be made federally eligible. Again, the ability to cover
eligible federal project or activity. If states had abundant funds, these costs with federal funds could encourage the conduct
they could spend them flexibly on project coordination and of these valuable process-improvement sessions.
partnering activities. However, as state funds are severely lim- · The cost of creating and sustaining a central repository like-
ited, many states are constrained in their project-development wise could be made federally eligible.
activities to those activities and procedures that are eligible for
federal reimbursement.
The federal reimbursement eligibility is currently limited Accounting Rules Requirements
to preliminary engineering and planning activities that are
A related change that could assist the partnering process is the
tied to a specific project. If federal "construction" funds are
development of a joint recommendation from the Class I rail-
used for a planning activity and a specific project is not con-
roads, representative state highway agencies, and the Federal
structed as a result, the state highway agency could be com-
Highway Administration on eligible reimbursement costs
pelled to repay the federal funds. The federal "repayment"
under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR
can be virtually automatic in that the federal agency can sim-
(48 CFR 153) governs how cost-accounting is to be con-
ply withhold a like amount of funding from the state's cur-
ducted on federal aid projects. The rules are not written
rent annual federal apportionment. Although it happens
specifically for railroad cost recovery. At least one of the Class
rarely, such repayment is a real possibility and serves as a
I railroads said the cost-accounting rules are cumbersome for
serious factor on the states' considerations and approaches
the railroads and have led to delays and uncertainty. Devel-
to project-coordination activities. The types of federal funds
that states may typically use for highwayrailroad projects oping FAR rules specific to the highwayrailroad agreement
but are not eligible for general coordination or "partnering" process could further expedite the billing and reimbursement
would include the largest federal categories, such as the processes.
Surface Transportation Program, Bridge Program, National Similarly, the railroads that participate in streamlined
Highway System Funds, Interstate Maintenance Program, agreements could review their accounting procedures to
and the Highway Safety Improvement Program. These funds ensure they are clearly segregating the project review costs.
generally make up the largest categories of a state's construc- Avoidance of inflated overhead costs from other depart-
tion program. ments and divisions for the project review and partnering
Other categories of federal funds are eligible for general process would provide assurances to the state highway agen-
types of planning activities and coordination. However, they cies. During the course of the interviews, state officials com-
are not eligible for project-specific coordination. Funds such plained of receiving vague or seemingly inflated invoices
as State Planning and Research and Surface Transportation from railroads for project-coordination activities. Costs of
Program planning set-aside funds can be used for ongoing meals, travel, overhead, and other expenses were not clearly
planning, research, or coordination activities. delineated, some state officials said. They said such undocu-
Discussion by state and federal agencies of eligibility for the mented costs not only delayed payments but also under-
general highwayrailroad coordination process could poten- mined a sense of trust.
tially assist this same process. Activities under the model
processes that could benefit from funding eligibility could
Cost of Capital Calculation
include the following:
Although largely deregulated, the Class I railroads are subject
· Paying for the position of highway agencyrailroad liaison. to decisions and rule making by the Surface Transportation
The costs of staff, office, overhead, and travel attributable to Board (STB). One important determination by the STB is in
OCR for page 68
68
regards to the railroads' cost of capital. The STB uses the cost The state highway agencies are restricted in their ability to
of capital figure in evaluating the adequacy of individual rail- negotiate the value of such properties because they operate
roads' revenues each year. The figure is also used in maximum within the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
rate cases, feeder-line applications, rail line abandonments, Acquisition Policies Act. The act balances the property owner's
trackage rights cases, rail-merger reviews, and more generally rights to fair market value with the need to protect the fed-
in the STB's Uniform Rail Costing System (4). eral taxpayer from states paying exorbitant prices to prop-
Although the costs of providing highwayrailroad project erty owners. The act requires states to hire neutral appraisers
reviews and agreements are a relatively small part of the Class to assess the value of rights-of-way before making an offer. The
I railroads' operations, it would be consistent with the partner- appraisal is based on comparable market prices for compara-
ing process to ensure that railroad costs and railroad income ble real estate transactions. Because there is not a widely traded
from the project review agreements are accurately captured by market for railroad rights-of-way or air rights, it can be diffi-
the STB in the cost of capital calculations. 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-
Long-Range Expansion Plans Notification
ating such values became contentious and led to significant
A consistent complaint from state DOTs was railroads requir- project delays. They complained of the railroads seeking
ing additional track expansion to be accommodated in con- unreasonable compensation for such property or air rights.
struction plans. This can result in greater bridge span lengths The railroads noted they had paid taxes for some of the prop-
and other changes that can significantly affect the cost of erty for decades and were seeking value for the shareholders'
highway projects. These requests often surprised state offi- past outlays.
cials, because the existing number of tracks at a specific loca- A policy that could be reviewed is the appraisal process for
tion had been stable for years, if not decades. As they prepared complex railroad properties. Research into how to appraise
to improve the highway across such tracks, they were sur- air rights and other atypical properties could result in amended
prised to learn that they had to accommodate significantly approaches for appraising, negotiating, and securing such
more expensive requirements than they anticipated. properties, thereby reducing another source of project delay.
Several state officials suggested it would be helpful if the New professional practices for valuing railroad air rights
Class I railroads provided guidance as to their long-term plans could provide a basis for agreement by all parties.
for railway expansion. The officials suggested that knowing
how many tracks and how many sidings were anticipated could
Highway Agency Project Design Processes
help them as they planned the cost of highway improvements.
The railroads countered that their business plans seldom It was stressed repeatedly by the railroads and by the engi-
extended beyond five years, making it difficult to create mean- neering firms that represent them that plan development that
ingful forecasts of expansions. They noted that their business is adheres to railroad standards is crucial to reduce delays. Despite
reactive to shippers' needs. If a major customer goes out of busi- all good intentions and partnering agreements, in the end,
ness, relocates, or expands in the future, it would have a major the set of plans sent to the railroad must meet the railroad's
impact on the need for trackage and sidings. Such changes are acceptance.
difficult, if not impossible, for the railroads to predict. In addi- An institutional practice and policy that may need to change
tion, they said publicly providing such proprietary information to expedite project reviews is the incorporation of railroad
would require them to share company plans with competitors. standards and railroad formats into all plans submitted to the
At the same time, the Class I railroads are increasingly seek- railroads for review. Highway agencies for decades have had
ing federal funds for expansion purposes. When state highway design manuals and design policies. What some state highway
agencies and metropolitan planning organizations receive fed- agencies such as Texas, Washington, Ohio, and others have
eral transportation funds, they are required to produce short- done is to create subsets of those design manuals that specifi-
and long-range transportation plans that specify how they will cally address the necessary submittals and procedures for
be developing their transportation systems. Requiring the rail- railroad projects. These institutional practices are devised to
roads to produce similar information would be congruent with ensure that the most typical types of project impediments are
past transportation policy. clearly anticipated and addressed in each submittal to the
railroad.
The four largest Class I railroads have produced substan-
Complex Right-of-Way Appraisal Process
tial volumes of standard drawings, standard contract lan-
The value of railroad rights-of-way can be complex to appraise, guage, construction provisions, and other documentation to
particularly for such values as air rights in dense downtowns. assist the designer and the project sponsor to anticipate the
OCR for page 69
69
railroads' requirements. The total volume of these reports However, a highway relocation project that significantly
extends into hundreds of pages and includes considerable impacts railroad operations and rights-of-way could have
detail beyond that appropriate for this report. Each railroad's many individual stages and multiple reviews.
website includes draft agreements, standard drawings, and The performance measures suggested below include all
design standards to simplify the design and review process. measures necessary for a complex project. A subset of these
An institutional policy and practice change that could be measures could be selected for use on less complex projects.
considered by the highway agencies is to develop their own The following are suggested performance measures related
manual which is predicated on the standards and provi- to cycle times:
sions provided by the railroads with which they most com-
monly conduct business. These state manuals then could be · Time from project programming to time for first notifica-
incorporated into the contracts of consulting engineers tion of railroad;
who are selected to produce plans for railroadhighway · Time to process preliminary engineering agreement from
projects. time sent to railroad;
Interviews with the railroads, their consulting firms, and the · Whether railroad comments are returned within 60 days of
state highway agencies indicated that the following types of Stage 1 or 30% plan completion;
issues were among the most common ones that led to project · Whether railroad comments are returned within 60 days of
review delay. Therefore, it would be an advisable practice to Stage 2 or 60% plan completion; and
include in the state-specific manuals guidance to avoid delays · Whether railroad comments are returned within 60 days of
and conflicts over these most typical issues: Stage 3 or 90% plan completion.
· Horizontal and vertical clearance; The following are suggested performance measures related
· Bridge type selection; to plan quality:
· Accommodating the operating envelope (or window) and
closures during construction; · Whether changes in bridge type, size, roadway line, or
· Contractor control by railroad in regards to safety and rail- grade or drainage structures or limits are requested after
road operations; initial coordination;
· Shoring near embankment; · Whether project bid letting is delayed by requested railroad
· Boring, tunneling, pipe, and wire beneath railways; changes;
· Early flagging notice; · Whether expected completion date is delayed by railroad
· Safety training of state and contractor staff; issues; and
· Road master's control of construction; · Number of railroad interventions with contractor activi-
· Control of equipment adjacent to track; ties related to safety or railroad operations.
· Guarantee that all rights-of-way and property will be left in
good condition; and The following is a suggested performance measure related
· Ensuring that all utilities or other property in railroad to cost:
rights-of-way are protected.
· Total annual cost in hours, consultant costs, and overhead
for administering railroad agreements.
Suggested Institutional
Performance Measures
The suggested performance measures are intended to
Earlier, model processes were identified, including ones to provide insight into the timeliness, quality, and cost of the
continuously improve the project review process. Also, railroadhighway agreement process. As always with per-
model agreements were provided to memorialize the model formance measures, the measures are intended to provide a
processes, including those processes to continuously improve "dashboard" of the agreement process and not to provide
performance. exhaustive details of each function. If the "dashboard" indi-
Performance measures and other strategies for monitoring cates a problem with performance, the highway and railroad
success are suggested in the model processes and the memo- liaisons can evaluate the causes and, if necessary, address them
randum of understanding. Such performance measures should at the annual meeting or other joint forum. The intent of the
vary based on the type and complexity of agreements. Rela- performance measures is to complement the continuous-
tively simple projects, such as re-surfacing agreements or the improvement process by providing common data for the
maintenance of safety appurtenances such as lights and gates, evaluation of current performance against past performance
do not have lengthy and numerous stages of development. and desired performance.
OCR for page 70
70
Suggested Practices to requirements may vary from the roadway and bridge assump-
Accommodate Design-Build tions which he/she assumed in the contract. Provisions for
managing the timing and risk need to be incorporated.
The project request for proposal (RFP) makes specific refer-
Design-build projects involving railroads are similar to
ence to identifying barriers to effectiveness and to proposed
design-build projects that require more complex environmen-
remedies. The RFP also makes a brief but specific reference
tal approvals or permits. In these cases, outside agencies have
to alternative project delivery techniques, such as the use of
significant control over certain design and construction ele-
design-build. This section provides a brief guidance on how to
ments. These agencies' considerations need to be incorporated
incorporate design-build into the railroad-agreement process.
into the design, schedule, and construction of the projects.
"Design-build," according to a report published by the
Such examples include the following:
AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on Design-Build (5),
"is a project delivery method under which a project owner, · The need for environmental approval on alignments and
having defined its initial expectations to a certain extent, impacts;
executes a single contract for both architectural/engineering · Timing construction activities so that aquatic and terres-
services and construction." trial resources are protected during certain annual cycles,
Design-build is pursued instead of the traditional design- such as spawning runs or birthing seasons; and
bid-build for several reasons. The need to accelerate project · Various permits for stream work or wetland impacts that
delivery is a common reason. Another is the hope to encour- are required but cannot be obtained until after the contrac-
age innovation between designers and contractors if they are tor has produced detailed plans.
given more latitude to innovate. A third reason is a desire to
save costs on the assumption that faster, more innovative Similarly, the design-build contract needs to include provi-
construction with fewer design details may be more econom- sions to accommodate the timing, risk, and uncertainty caused
ical. Complaints about design-build are that government by railroad reviews. Strategies, tactics, and contract provisions
control is lessened. Common concerns are that design-build to do so can include the following:
could lead to substandard construction, a lack of adherence
to regulations, a lack of protection of right-of-way owners, · The highway agency requiring certain parameters as to
less adherence to environmental constraints, or indifference bridge type and roadway alignment be determined before
to common purchasing requirements by the contractor. In bidding the design-build project. The highway agency may
more precise and prescriptive design-bid-build contracts, the need to coordinate in advance with the railroad as to type,
highway agency produces a more detailed set of construction size, line, and grade of the structure and include those
plans that include precise details as to how the contractor will parameters as given in the design-build contract. In many
comply with numerous regulations or commitments. design-build cases, the highway agency has secured environ-
In both instances, the contractor faces certain constraints. mental approval already before bidding the design-build
Even in a loosely defined design-build contract, the contrac- contract. The environmental approval generally requires
tor must comply with all environmental statutes, right-of- sufficient detail that approximately 30% plan completion is
way laws, and utility relocations and generally must comply required. Those 30% plans, or Stage 1 plans, will need to
with standard highway agency provisions, such as mainte- include an alignment, grade, and bridge type, which can be
nance of traffic standards. Therefore, even in design-build, coordinated with the railroad for concurrence. The determi-
the contractor has less-than-free-rein to operate and must nation of bridge type and alignment can be incorporated as
accept the risk that assumptions he made about how he a controlling factor in the design-build bid documents.
would address such requirements may be challenged during · The highway agency needs to ensure additional coordina-
construction. tion with the railroad during project development by the
Design-build is a variant but is not fundamentally different contractor. As with environmental and permit requirements
from the design-bid-build process. A design is produced in that are included as restrictions on the contractors in
design-build, but to a lesser degree of detail. It must result in design-build projects, certain restrictions regarding rail-
the construction of pavements, bridges, drainage structures, road coordination will need to be included in design-build
geometrics, lighting, signage, appurtenances, right-of-way projects involving the railroad. During the design process,
acquisition, and environmental permitting, all of which must the contractor will need to include time for the review of
comport with professional standards, statutes, and regulations. the 60% and 90% plans by the railroad. The railroad should
What differs is the timing of the approvals and the shifting of reciprocate in the partnering environment by ensuring
risk. In design-build, the contractor assumes additional risk as timely reviews to the contractor's submittals. Considering
to the timing of the approvals and the degree to which railroad the advance coordination conducted by the highway agency
