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.
7C H A P T E R 2 Research ApproachThe research project began with the formation of a team of vet- eran state highway and Class I railroad personnel. A project advisory panel was formed to meet at critical points of the proj- ect. The panel consisted of three public projects managers of Class I railroads, five state transportation agency rail project coordinators, and representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Railroad Adminis- tration (FRA). The panel met early in the project to identify common issues, to assemble an initial list of best practices, and to approve survey language. A survey was sent to all 50 state DOTs and to more than 350 local governments nationwide. It asked respondents to identify common problems and to rank potential best practices for their effectiveness. Respondents also were asked to iden- tify federal regulations and practices that could be changed to improve the project review and project agreement processes. The project team members reviewed the processes and stan- dard agreements used by the seven Class I railroads. Six of the seven agreed to extensive interviews, which further clarified the railroad practices. During the interviews, the Class I railroads were asked to further evaluate best practices and to list strate- gies to expedite the review and agreement processes. Five of the national engineering firms that conduct project reviews on behalf of the Class I railroads also were inter- viewed. Because these firms provide engineering services for both highway agencies and the Class I railroads, they had par- ticular insight into how both entities approach the project- development process. Twelve state DOTs were interviewed in depth about the best practices they have developed. An extensive body of material was reviewed, including the following: ⢠State manuals for the railroad coordination process; ⢠Standard project agreements used throughout the country by railroads and highway agencies; ⢠Master agreements that have been developed in some states;⢠The standard provisions that some states have developed in conjunction with the railroads to be included in all construction contracts that involve railroad rights-of- way; ⢠The public project manuals and information provided by the Class I railroads; ⢠The standard drawings and construction requirements that some of the Class I railroads provide to highway agencies; ⢠The standard agreements and permits that some of the Class I railroads provide to access railroad rights-of-way or to install pipe and wire crossings; ⢠Federal statutes and their related Code of Federal Regu- lations; ⢠Guidance from FHWA and FRA; ⢠Policy positions of the Association of American Railroads; ⢠National highway design standards pertaining to railroads; ⢠Studies on the legal and economic history of American railroads; ⢠Recommended practices for project management, partner- ing, and process improvement from groups such as the Project Management Institute and the Baldrige National Quality Program; and ⢠Studies and practices related to Environmental Streamlining. The interviews, advisory panel meeting, and literature review provided an initial list of recommended best practices. These best practices then were included in the survey for eval- uation by the survey respondents. There was a high correla- tion between the best practices identified by the advisory panel and the interviews with the rankings made by the sur- vey respondents. These practices then were ranked in terms of their perceived effectiveness. In the second phase of the project, the team developed model agreements and processes and identified mechanisms by which model agreements and processes can be maintained and updated.