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.
76A P P E N D I X A Railroad Processes for Addressing AgreementsProcesses of Individual Railroads The processes of each railroad vary to some degree. In the fol- lowing sections, the processes of each of the five largest Class I railroads and of Amtrak are summarized. Because of the com- plexity of these processes and the large number of projects the railroads address, each of the Class I railroads has taken vari- ous steps to make them more predictable and routine. These steps include the following: ⢠Providing standard drawings for typical projects, such as structures, signals, and tracks; ⢠Providing standard agreements that include language they will accept without review; ⢠Providing standard applications and forms for typical projects or permits; ⢠Offering to develop master agreements that streamline routine functions; and ⢠Providing manuals on how to successfully navigate their processes. CSX Public Projects Process The CSX Corporation owns CSX Transportation (CSXT) and CSX Intermodal, which provide rail and intermodal service in 23 states, the District of Columbia, and two Cana- dian provinces. It operates more than 1,200 trains daily over 21,000 miles of track. CSX Corporation has produced a public projects manual that offers guidance, standard agreements, and standard drawings to assist public agencies (1). It states the following: [T]he company wants to be a good neighbor in the states and communities where we operate. That is why we have prepared this information. We want to make it easier for communitiesto work with us when they have construction and improve- ment projects that may involve the CSXT railroad. . . . Accurate and timely communication of information between CSXT and these parties improves planning, relation- ships and successful completion of projects. The information in this manual is intended to improve communication and cooperation on construction and improve- ment projects that may involve the CSXT rail property. These tools explain important steps CSXT must follow including information required in connection with any public project proposal. The manual includes the following: ⢠Contact lists; ⢠Requirements for preliminary engineering agreements; ⢠Explanation of payments and costs; ⢠Process for entry onto CSX property; ⢠Public road crossings and closures guidelines; ⢠Parallel road construction guidelines; ⢠Crossing warning devices guidelines; ⢠Quiet zone processes; ⢠Bicycle and pedestrian facilities rules; ⢠Painting requirements for CSX bridges; ⢠Overhead and undergrade bridge criteria; ⢠Insurance requirements; ⢠Flagging requirements; ⢠Grade crossing maintenance requirements; ⢠Standard preliminary engineering agreements; ⢠Standard construction agreements; and ⢠Special provisions during construction. The manual also includes a set of key points for success, including the following: ⢠Start preliminary engineering reviews early in the project- development process.
77⢠Use CSX standard agreements, which reduce review time. These include the following: Preliminary engineering agreement. Construction agreement. Special provisions for work on right-of-way. ⢠Complete a preliminary engineering agreement early. ⢠Arrange for payments to be made for engineering reviews. ⢠Provide as soon as possible initial concept information about the project. The manual provides the policy rationale for CSXâs require- ments, as well as ready access to engineering requirements and engineering personnel necessary to develop a project. Its pol- icy explanations address issues such as why the railroad needs to charge for reviews, why it requires rights-of-entry agree- ments, why it discourages new at-grade crossings, why it needs to be involved during parallel road construction, and why it has significant insurance requirements. Although it does not provide detailed schedules, it provides general guidance about time frames and costs for various types of projects and agree- ments, such as the following: ⢠Preliminary engineering for projects such as grade separa- tions can accrue costs of up to $25,000 and can require up to 5 months of review time. ⢠Right-of-entry permits cost $750 and can take up to 6 weeks to process. ⢠Separate preliminary engineering agreements and payments are required for signal and warning device reviews. ⢠Once projects are approved for construction, up to 45 days may be necessary to schedule in-house flagging crews who must be present. Flagging typically costs $600 to $800 per day. CSX also provides sample agreements for preliminary engi- neering, construction, and special provisions. It encourages public agencies to work from these documents when prepar- ing agreements. The engineering and legal staff at CSX said their reviews of projects that are predicated on these standard agreements are routine and much faster than reviews of unique agreements. A standard agreement, they advise, can be rou- tinely approved with a cursory review of any additional provi- sions, while a unique agreement requires a line-by-line review by busy legal staff. The preliminary engineering agreement includes provi- sions such as the following: ⢠Acknowledgment that CSX and the public agency agree to cooperate on project reviews; ⢠Reviews do not imply that CSX will approve the project or agree to construction;⢠CSX provides no implied consent regarding the adequacy of the project that eventually may be constructed; ⢠The estimated amount of reimbursement; ⢠Payment will be in full and in advance; ⢠The agency will make all reasonable efforts to get appropri- ation authority for the agreement; ⢠Provisions for termination by either party; ⢠Subconsultants can be used by both parties; and ⢠Standard âboilerplateâ relating to severability, assignment to successors, and concurrence with governing statutes. The construction agreement includes the same provisions, but also adds the following: ⢠A detailed description of the project; ⢠A description of the tasks required of the public agency; ⢠An estimate of expenses reimbursable to CSX; ⢠Assurances that the agency and contractor will acquire all needed environmental or legal permits and easements; ⢠CSXâs ability to terminate the agreement or exclude the contractor from the right-of-way for any unsafe practice or condition; ⢠Insurance requirements of $5 million for commercial gen- eral liability, railroad protective liability of $5 million for a single incident, and a total of $10 million aggregate; ⢠Maintenance responsibilities of the parties after construc- tion; and ⢠Indemnification for reckless or wrongful contractor actions. The Special Provisions Appendix imposes the following additional requirements on the agency and contractor during the construction process: ⢠Nothing shall be construed to permit interference with railroad operations. ⢠CSX shall be notified 30 days in advance of the start of construction if flagging is required and 10 days in advance otherwise. ⢠Written authorization is required to begin work on rail- road property. ⢠Contractor shall not deviate from plans without written approval. ⢠Equipment shall not cross tracks without approval. ⢠Contractor and agency shall not charge CSX for project delays. ⢠Equipment and materials shall not be stored on railroad property without approval. ⢠CSX inspects and approves construction on its property. ⢠The CSX safety manual will be followed. ⢠Blasting will be strictly controlled. ⢠Flagging will be provided and controlled by CSX, with ade- quate notification.
78⢠Utilities will be safely addressed. ⢠The project site will be restored to its original condition when complete. ⢠CSX reserves the right to eject the contractor for unsafe or noncompliant activities. In addition to the process and legal requirements, CSX provides the most critical design parameters for typical types of projects. It provides guidance or standards for typical but important design issues, such as the following: ⢠Stationing or location information; ⢠Vertical and horizontal clearances both during construc- tion and permanently; ⢠Geological testing information; ⢠Rigging and lifting requirements during construction; ⢠Crash wall guidance; ⢠Drainage guidance; ⢠Fencing; ⢠Shoring and excavation; ⢠Needed calculations; ⢠Demolition requirements; ⢠Pipe installation; ⢠Pedestrian overhead structures; and ⢠Undergrade bridge requirements. Officials at CSX said in an interview that their intent was to provide public sponsors with the information they need to successfully matriculate a project and its agreement through the CSX process. They provided the standards and guidance in an effort to promote clarity and efficiency in the project- development process. CSX does not provide all of its design standards, but it says its standards do not vary significantly from the widely disseminated AREMA standards. Unique design considerations at specific locations can be addressed in prelim- inary consultations at the project concept stage or in prelim- inary submittals. CSX officials said they encourage master and standard agreements for the ease of public agencies. CSX provides draft agreements with language that it will accept automatically. But they indicate that some states and localities have constraining statutes that may prohibit those governments from accepting all of the standard language. The CSX officials indicate that they have signed several master or standard agreements crafted by states that incorporate the stateâs legal issues. Whether the agreement is based on CSX language or local language, they encourage the use of standard agreements to save all the par- ties time and effort. They have experience with various legal strategies to reconcile the conflicts between state law and CSXâs requirements. For instance, issues such as indemnification or insurance which the state cannot address can be shifted to the contractor, which does not have such legal prohibi-tions. Regardless of the details, CSX staff indicate that they encourage and pursue standard agreements to the extent pos- sible. Having worked for more than a century with more than 25 states, they have broad experience in legal strategies to reach agreements. CSX indicates that it relies heavily on outside consultants for review of projects. Its in-house engineering staff members function more as project and program managers, not as engi- neering reviewers. The widespread downsizing of railroad staffs has led to such outsourcing. The use of consultants also allows the accurate capturing of time and labor. Consultants track their time and the cost of that time can be assigned back to the public agency that requires the review. Officials at CSX and all the railroads interviewed stressed the significant work volumes their staffs experience. Each of the five regional CSX divisions handles approximately 800 projects at one time. The CSX public projects staff has five principal engi- neers and a small administrative staff to handle all public proj- ects. They and other railroads all readily acknowledge the typical lapses that occur in any organization because of over- work, changing priorities, staff vacations, and emergencies. However, they indicate that many project delays could be avoided by adherence to their standards and agreements. CSX officials were complimentary of the typical public agency and the quality of their submittals. Although they do not have formal metrics on the matter, they estimate that no more than 5% of submittals are significantly substandard. They said that local agencies with less experience are the more likely sources of significant review comments, rework, and delay. The CSX officials indicated that they challenge project spon- sors to meet the railroadâs optimal design standards, but they also recognize that they cannot always be met. Projects often are being constructed in areas with tight rights-of-way, difficult terrain, or adjacent constraints. In such cases, they said, they accommodate exceptions to their typical standards but in such a fashion as to protect railroad operations, assets, safety, and operational efficiency. âWhen they can demonstrate itâs impossible to meet our standards, then we say, âShow us that and weâll see what else we can do,ââ is how one CSX public projects official described their attitude. They said that while they prefer overhead projects to com- pletely span their rights-of-way, they realize that can lead to excess public expenses. While they will insist that future track needs are protected, they regularly provide permanent use of their rights-of-way for public projects. They described their corporate attitude toward public proj- ects as being driven by a recognition that they need to cooper- ate and accommodate public projects, while exposing their corporation to as little risk as possible. They do not want exposure to liability, additional costs, or constrained operating
79parameters because of a project that does not benefit their shareholders or customers. They said their attitude toward public projects varies by type of projects. They acknowledged they do not encourage new, at-grade crossings. Those are at odds with both railroad and Federal Railroad Administration policy, which is to reduce the number of crossings. Projects that close or grade separate crossings they encourage as being in both the railroadâs inter- ests and in the interest of public safety. They acknowledged that a common source of delay or dis- agreement is in the assigning of costs. Some, particularly local, agencies object to paying for reviews and submittals. Others disagree with the costs. CSX officials insisted that they do not try to profit from public projects but merely try to capture their true and total costs. If they do not assign those costs back to the project sponsor, they are then indirectly assigned to customers and shareholders. They noted that they can experience engi- neering review and legal costs of thousands of dollars on proj- ects, and that those costs must be covered by someone. The CSX officials were complimentary of states that closely track project submittals. They anecdotally described instances where some states did not respond to railroad comments for months, acknowledged that they had lost the comments, and asked for them to be resent. The CSX officials said that, for some states, the railroad could not discern a pattern of prior- ity or schedule for projects. Other states, such as Michigan, Florida, and North Carolina, closely track project milestones. The CSX officials indicated that they were willing to participatein conference calls and meetings with states in order to keep all parties abreast of schedules, outstanding issues, and expected completion dates. Norfolk Southern Railway Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) operates approximately 21,000 miles of track in 22 eastern states. It coordinates highway proj- ects through its Public Improvements office in Atlanta. It pub- lishes an array of standards, permits, and guidelines on its website to promote understanding of its process and to make it easier for public agencies to comply with its design and con- struction standards. NS has published typical timelines and steps for various types of projects (Table A.1). Its officials indicated they pre- pared these schedules in cooperation with public agencies so that the agencies could anticipate the lead time necessary for railroad review and concurrence. These time frames are pred- icated on the assumption that all submittals are complete and address railroad concerns. NS emphasizes that up to 9 weeks can be trimmed from the project schedule if the public agency submits a project agree- ment early in the process. NS will review and process the agree- ment concurrent with the other reviews. It has developed model agreements that it will approve with minimal review. These time frames indicate that a minimum of 12 weeks and up to a maximum of 40 weeks are necessary for internal railroad coordination and review. Between these weeks ofTable A.1. Norfolk Southern Schedule for Project Reviews Type of Project Grade Parallel Overhead Grade Underpass Grade Steps in Process Crossing Encroachment Separation Separation Submit preliminary plans and 3 weeks 3 weeks 3 weeks 12 weeks request acknowledgment of plans Receive railroad comments 7 weeks 7 weeks 7 weeks 8 weeks on preliminary plans Receive comments on 3 weeks 3 weeks 3 weeks 6 weeks corrected plans Receive railroad cost estimate 1 week 1 week 1 week 2 weeks Receive project agreement 7 weeks 7 weeks 7 weeks 7 weeks approval from railroad If railroad financial 5 weeks 5 weeks 5 weeks 5 weeks contribution is needed Total railroad handling time 21 weeks without 21 weeks without 21 weeks without 35 weeks without contribution; 26 weeks contribution; 26 weeks contribution; 26 weeks contribution; 40 weeks with contribution with contribution with contribution with contribution Source: Norfolk Southern Review Schedule for Public Improvement Projects (2).
80review, the public agency will be conducting its own project- development processes. As a result, the total coordination process for a complex project such as a grade separation could extend over several years. To reduce the uncertainty in project development and to provide specificity for project developers, NS provides a com- prehensive set of guidelines and standard drawings on its website (3). The guidance it provides includes overhead grade separation design criteria, underpass grade separation design criteria, guidelines for under track culverts, special provisions for protection of railway interests, and the schedule of review of grade separation projects. NS provides permits for environmental rights of entry, nonenvironmental rights of access, and right of access within 50 feet of a railroad track, as well as all the appropriate points of contact for access information (4). It also provides applica- tions for pipe and wire crossings of railroad rights-of-way (5). A right-of-entry permit for engineering studies requires a $750 fee, exhibits illustrating the site, and assurances that all insurance, safety, and environmental provisions will be followed. Pipeline and wire crossings or encroachments are managed through the DMJM Harris office in Philadelphia, now a sub- sidiary of AECOM. DMJM Harris is a national, full-service engineering firm that NS has under contract to review and process pipe and wire permits. It processes all agreements and reviews, while the final agreement and occupancy license is issued through NS. DMJM Harris reports the following time- lines for review of pipe and wire projects: ⢠Within 30 days of an application, DMJM will provide com- ments, including the need for additional information or comments as to how to rectify an incomplete application. If revised plans are not received within 30 days, the application will be automatically canceled. ⢠If revised plans comply with NS standards, a draft agreement will be prepared and mailed within 30 days. ⢠If revised plans still are inadequate, additional comments will be provided within 2 weeks. ⢠On acceptance of adequate plans, the applicant will execute the license agreement and return it to DMJM with a check for the appropriate license fees and certificates of insurance. Draft agreements are valid for 60 days without an extension. ⢠NS will then execute the license, and the fully executed agreement will be returned to the applicant in approxi- mately 1 week. The application must include items such as accurate project description, mapping and geographic information, accurate right-of-way descriptions, photographs, and other materi- als sufficient to allow thorough comment. Fees range from $1,200 to $2,100, with additional costs for supplemental filingsand amendments. These fees do not cover the cost of insur- ance, right-of-way, easements, and additional complex engi- neering reviews. The period for the application process varies, depending on the quality of the submittal. A DMJM official indicated that the quality of most submittals generally is good. The most com- mon problem is incomplete information, particularly concern- ing insurance. He estimated that a significant percentage of his staffâs time spent on pipe and wire agreements is devoted to merely getting accurate information regarding basic aspects of insurance coverage. He said that issues such as incomplete or inaccurate names and addresses of insurers and beneficiaries consistently delay applications. DMJM advises applicants that if their submittals are accu- rate and complete, transverse crossings applications can be completed in 30 days, longitudinal occupancy applications in 3 to 4 months, and complex projects dependent on their unique considerations. Generally, it assures applicants that it will respond to submittals within 30 days. The agreements may require typical railroad safety and protection clauses, including requirements that the applicant pay for flagging, inspection, and maintenance work related to the project. In addition to the basic application information, NS pro- vides 38 pages of design and construction guidance for pipeline projects. The guidance specifies the type of engineering details and calculations that NS requires to ensure its railroadsâ safety. Boring beneath a railroad can lead to subsidence of the tracks. Trenching can lead to cave-ins that can subside track. Flood- ing by storm water can erode track and structures. Some pipelines carry hazardous or flammable materials. All these complexities have led to specific engineering reviews that DMJM Harris conducts on behalf of NS. NS also advises that complex projectsâparticularly ones that require lengthy lon- gitudinal encroachmentsâcan require site visits and reviews. Such reviews add time and cost because of the scheduling and engineering time required. NS provides another 23 pages of culvert guidance and 13 pages of guidance for wire, conduit, and cable encroach- ments and crossings. A DMJM Harris representative who has worked closely with the pipe and wire process for many years said that applications proceed most quickly when they are handled by experienced personnel whom both DMJM and NS know. His opinion was that experienced people are more important than a particular process. DMJM and NS acknowledge that such projects can be routine and expeditious if the details are adequately addressed. When all parties are familiar with one anotherâs proven exper- tise, reviews are faster, responses to comments are quicker, and each party will be more likely to accept the engineering judgment of the other. He said the interaction is based on both engineer- ing expertise and personal trust among the partiesâNS, DMJM, the applicant, and the applicantâs engineer.
81The DMJM Harris representative said that successful appli- cations for routine utility, drainage, or pipeline projects gener- ally not only provide complete information but also present this information in the standard format and sequence that the railroad expects. Successful projects also include early railroad coordination, not coordination that occurs late in the project- development process. He described a model process as being one in which knowl- edgeable engineering staff start the coordination process early, prepare complete submittals, and understand the needs of the railroads. He recommended that reliance on standard agree- ments, as opposed to customized or unique legal agreements, will save considerable time. NS also provides 10 pages of overhead grade separation design criteria that address issues such as vertical and horizontal clear- ances, drainage, crash walls, excavation, erosion control, demo- lition, erection and hoisting, and plan requirements. NS also provides requirements during construction, which are summarized under âSpecial Provisions for Protection of Railway Interests.â It addresses issues such as the following: ⢠The railroad representative will have final authority over all issues of safety. ⢠Contractors will not begin work until written permission has been granted. ⢠Contractors shall not be allowed to interfere with railroad operations. ⢠Contractors need to pay for and provide railroad flagging services. ⢠The railroad shall inspect and approve all work. ⢠Special protections are taken during excavation and shoring to protect tracks and structures. ⢠Erection, demolition, and hoisting cannot impede the rail- road operating envelopes and must be conducted with the approval of the railroad engineers. ⢠Blasting is strictly controlled. ⢠Materials and equipment will not be stored on rights-of- way without written permission. ⢠Materials and equipment cannot be hauled across tracks without written permission. ⢠Contractors cannot make delay claims against railroads because of railroad operations. ⢠Insurance will be provided in accordance with railroad requirements. ⢠Failure to comply with safety or insurance provisions can result in the contractor being expelled from the railroad property. NS handles its public project reviews from its Atlanta Public Improvements Office. At any one time, NS has approximately 1,600 public projects pending. It estimates that 70% of submit- tals are adequate. Typical deficiencies involve lack of adequate clearances or problems with drainage plans. NS says it will sharewith public agencies the names of the engineering firms with which it works frequently. It advises public agencies to select one of those firms, as they are highly experienced in the details of NS specifications. NS officials indicate that they provide extensive design and construction guidance on their website to clarify for public agencies what is required for a successful submittal. A major issue that they cannot reduce to guidance for every project is the needed horizontal clearances at a particular site for future track expansion. NS indicates that it strongly advises project sponsors to coordinate with them early, at the project concept stage. The officials say they will provide guidance as to their lat- eral clearance needs and will provide right-of-way maps early in the process. NS describes a âboots on the groundâ philoso- phy regarding public projects. It wants to meet early, will meet on-site, and particularly wants to be on-site for preconstruc- tion meetings on most projects. NS strongly recommends a centralized railroad agreement office for state departments of transportation. It prefers work- ing regularly with experienced, centralized state officials to dealing with individual DOT districts. Its officials indicate that district personnel are more likely to deal with the railroad process infrequently and tend to not develop the expertise that accrues to centralized personnel who interact with the railroads more often. NS also strongly prefers to use standing master agreements for preliminary engineering and for construction standards. It provides its special provisions for protection of railway interests as the basis of standard language to be included in every con- struction project. Inclusion of these provisions simplifies and streamlines the development of project agreements. BNSF Railway Process BNSF Railway operates 32,000 miles of railway in 26 states, most of which is west of the Mississippi River. It is the nationâs second largest railroad. Like NS and CSXT, BNSF Railway emphasizes its corporate policy to cooperate with public agencies on projects. It focuses its project-coordination efforts through its public projects division, based in Kansas City, Kansas. Unlike CSXT or NS, it has not published a public proj- ects manual or design standards on its website. Its officials said they used to publish company design standards until they were named in a lawsuit brought by a design firm. The firm con- tended its errors and omissions on a project were based on out- dated design standards it obtained from BNSF. Since then, BNSF has not published standards. Instead, it advises designers and public project sponsors to design projects to the standards of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of- Way Association (AREMA). When the draft plans are submit- ted to BNSF, the railroad will provide detailed design standard comments on a case-by-case basis.
82BNSF reports that it relies on outreach to public agencies to develop effective lines of communication. Its Public Proj- ects division attempts to schedule annual meetings with the department of transportation within each state it serves. These annual meetings and regular contacts with project sponsors about ongoing projects serve to provide open communication between the railroad and public agencies. Its website includes contact information for the Public Proj- ects division officials assigned to each state (6). It also provides applications and standard agreements for typical projects or permits (7), including the following: ⢠Access to BNSF property for environmental assessment needs; ⢠Standard roadway repaving projects; ⢠Crossing of tracks with oversized loads; ⢠Permits for pipe and wire crossings; ⢠Permits to construct or maintain culverts or other minor maintenance devices; and ⢠Temporary occupancy of right-of-way permits. All the Class I railroads rely on private sector engineering firms for services such as plan review and construction engi- neering and inspection. In addition, BNSF outsources han- dling of the basic permits and agreements, including all of those listed above. The firm Staubach Global Services man- ages those permits and reviews for BNSF. Staubach reports that the following are the standard pro- cessing times and fees for various permits and approvals: ⢠Access to right-of-way for environmental studies, such as borings or soil sampling: $350 per permit, with a process- ing time of up to 60 days if all application information is complete and accurate. An additional fee and additional time are required for each resubmittal caused by incom- plete information. ⢠Permission to install or improve a culvert, drainage structure, or other routine appurtenance on or adjacent to railroad property: The permit has a $350 application fee and requires up to 60 days for processing and an engineering review. The average cost for the engineering review is $2,500. ⢠Roadway resurfacing projects: $350 fee, varying engineer- ing reimbursement costs, and requires up to 60 days for processing. The review process for a typical minor project, such as a resurfacing at or near a rail crossing, includes the following steps and time frame, according to Staubach: 1. The project sponsor sends application, drawings, and $350 fee to Staubach.2. In 10 to 15 working days, Staubach forwards the applica- tion and preliminary drawing to engineering firm, which will prepare final drawings for the contract. 3. When the drawings are drafted by the engineering firm, plans are sent to the BNSF roadmaster for approval. 4. The roadmaster sends plans to applicant, who forwards a copy to Staubach. 5. The Staubach permits manager executes permit if all cer- tification and payments are received. 6. The agency ensures that the contractor completes the online safety training course before commencing work. 7. The agency-applicant provides notice to the roadmaster 5 days before beginning the project. The total process is estimated to take up to 60 days if filings are complete and accurate. If they are not, additional time is required to return files and to get complete application information. BNSF public projects officials strongly recommend the fol- lowing general steps and schedule: ⢠Conduct annual overview meetings in which the railroad and the public agency review processes in general and seek opportunities to improve communication and workflows. ⢠The following are recommended for specific projects: A preproject scoping meeting in which the railroad and project sponsor discuss the project concept, location, special site conditions, and geometric needs of the rail- road for that location. A submittal at the 30% plan stage, which usually includes a line, grade, typical section for roadway; and a type, size, and estimate for structures. A submittal at the 60% plan stage, which will include changes made to address the comments on the 30% plans. A submittal at 90% completion when details such as drainage structures, right-of-way limits, utility reloca- tions, and work limits are clear. ⢠BNSF wants to pay particular attention to details that are critical to the railroad, such as shoring around piers and foundations, demolition plans, and erection procedures. ⢠BNSF also encourages preconstruction meetings on all projects, but requires them on complex ones, such as grade separations and new alignment. Internally, during its review process, the BNSF public proj- ects team tracks these major milestones for each project: con- cept stage; diagnostics stage; estimates requested; estimates sent to agency; contract negotiated; contract returned to agency; and contracts signed. It reports that each of these seven steps requires about 30 days of internal processing time and review
83within the railroad. BNSF reports that it is difficult to estimate the average time for all reviews because of the great variation in the timing of submittals. It reports that some agencies can go years between submittals if projects are delayed for various rea- sons, such as a reduction in finances, changes in priorities, or environmental delays. BNSF offers standard project agreements for most types of projects in order to help the public agency save time and money. The draft standard agreements include the standard clauses and considerations BNSF requires. They offer draft standard agreements for the following: ⢠Crossing surface installation projects; ⢠Highwayârail signal interfaces projects; ⢠Grade crossing signal installation agreements; ⢠Underpass projects; and ⢠Overpass agreements. Joint BNSF Railway/Union Pacific Railroad Guidelines One of the major innovations to assist public agencies was the joint development by BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad of guidelines for railroad grade separation projects. These are the two largest railroads, and they collectively dominate the large majority of rail traffic west of the Mississippi River. The joint guidelines provide a unique resource that bene- fits dozens of states and hundreds of communities that pur- sue grade crossings. It addresses a comprehensive array of processes, standards, timelines, and advice on how to develop a grade separation project for approval by the railroads. Because grade separation projects are among the most complex ones, the guidelines include many components that would be rele- vant to other projects as well. Included in the guidelines are the following: ⢠Purposes, definitions, and references. ⢠How to develop agreements and the minimum require- ments for them. ⢠What is needed for submittals, including the following: Designs; Calculations; Geotechnical; Drainage; Construction plans; and As-built drawings. ⢠General requirements for the following: Shooflies; Track spacing; Accommodating future tracks and access roads; Structure types; Temporary and permanent clearances; Drainage and erosion; and Construction oversight. ⢠Overhead structures: Design plans; Clearances; Pier and abutment locations; Lighting; and Drainage and erosions. ⢠Underpass structures: Materials requirements; Acceptable deck types; Sequences of construction; and Temporary structures. ⢠A variety of standard drawings. Agreements The guidelines note that the applicant is responsible for all costs to plan, design, construct, and maintain the grade sepa- ration structure. The guidelines also put applicants on notice that they must comply with all of the railroadâs construction practices and inspection procedures, and they must not inter- fere with any other facilities or utilities within the railroad right-of-way. Applicants are also responsible for all the rail- roadâs costs associated with the review of plans and construc- tion documents and with construction procedures. Submittals The guidelines note that review of submittals does not remove any liability or responsibility from the applicant for subse- quent problems. They spell out requirements for engineering oversight, submittal schedules, design submittals, submittal of calculations, and stages for submittal. These stages include the following for a typical overhead structure: ⢠Submittal of conceptual plans with site pictures. Four weeks allowed for review. ⢠Submittal of 30% plans, which include responses to com- ments on conceptual plans, preliminary designs, shoofly specifications (a shoofly is a temporary bypass track built to accommodate construction on existing tracks), a drainage report, and construction phasing plans. Four weeks allowed for review. ⢠100% plans, which include responses to all earlier com- ments. Four weeks allowed for review. ⢠Construction plans that address the following: Shoring; False work; Demolition; Erection;
84 Erosion control; and Construction phasing plans. Underpass projects are much less common and are discour- aged by the guidelines. Several additional design components are required, with an additional 6 weeks for review. General Requirements The guidelines require construction projects to create no interference with railroad operations. They recommend overpasses, because overpasses cause less interference to rail operations during construction than underpasses do. The guidelines also recommend the construction of shooflies if track interruption is necessary. They require maintaining existing track spacing and the widening of existing substan- dard spacing. The railroads require 20 feet minimum spacing between freight train tracks and 25 feet between freight and passenger lines. A fundamental component of any conceptual planning is determining future needs for main tracks, sidings, and spur tracks for local development. The railroad may have specific plans for additional tracks for major, critical service routes. In other cases, transit or other passenger rail agencies may have long-range track needs. Additional clearances for future tracks, sidings, and access facilities are to be identified early in the con- ceptual stage of the project. To the extent possible, the guidelines require piers and abutments to be outside of rights-of-way. If that is impossible because of the width of the right-of-way, then a minimum of at least 25 feet of horizontal clearance is required between the outside track and the nearest obstructing pier or abutment. This clearance allows for maintenance access or additional track. The minimum permanent vertical clearance is 23 ft 4 in. Lesser vertical and horizontal clearances during construction can be permitted. The general guidance also notes that specific plans will need to be approved for shoring, demolition, erection, false work, drainage, vegetation, access roads, and a variety of spe- cific considerations during construction. The railroad will require assurances that all those procedures are met during construction. In addition, it will require the following: ⢠Safety training for employees who are on site; ⢠The existence of and adherence to a formal safety plan; ⢠Appropriate flagging provided by or approved by the rail- road; ⢠Adherence to all erection and demolition plans to ensure the safety of trains and track; ⢠Assurances that equipment, materials, false work, and other items do not interfere with the operating envelop; and ⢠Adherence to all environmental requirements.BNSF public projects officials emphasize that they want to cooperate with public projects, as evidenced by their creation of an entire division to service these projects. However, they also note that BNSF tracks are a â34,000-mile storefrontâ for the company. Its right-of-way is finite, while its freight volume has steadily increased. After decades of track abandonments, BNSF is in a steady mode of expansion, particularly for impor- tant Pacific Rim intermodal traffic and coal shipments. Its overriding corporate concern has to be the protection of rights- of-way and operating envelopes so that immediate and long- term customer needs are met. BNSF officials report that the biggest impediment to the efficient processing of agreements and review of plans is a lack of understanding of railroad standards and requirements. They strongly advise project sponsors to use one of the several firms that BNSF itself relies on. Another consistent problem is a lack of understanding of the need for flagging. Applicants, BNSF officials indicate, fail to anticipate the need for, cost of, or advance time required for flagging services. An innovation BNSF offers is assistance with securing short-term railroad protective liability insurance. Firms can buy a rider on the BNSF policy for short-term insurance that may be needed for minor projects. Union Pacific Railroad Union Pacific Railroad (UP) is the nationâs largest railroad company. It has 32,000 miles of track in 23 states. Its rail net- works are the most far-flung in the nation, stretching from Louisiana to Chicago across the western two-thirds of the country, including the entire West Coast. Its Industry and Pub- lic Projects Division at its headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska, is the focal point for its interaction with a large number of pub- lic agencies across the western two-thirds of the nation. Its website includes extensive information regarding appli- cations for various permits, including environmental right-of- way access, pipe and wire easements, and drainage installation or modifications. However, its public projects team indicates that it does not publish generalized project-development guide- lines or agreements because of the great diversity in public agency requirements that it faces across its vast system. It does not publish a single model agreement or model process for project reviews because of the significantly different legal and project-development requirements of the different states. It develops agreements on a state-by-state basis. UP public project officials indicate that preliminary engi- neering agreements are usually included with construction and maintenance agreements, although preliminary engineering may be addressed often in a separate letter of agreement. It pro- vides standard construction agreements, which it uses when agencies do not have their own standard agreements or when UP cannot accept the public agencyâs proposed agreement.
85Its manager of industry and public projects (MIPP) is the initial contact with the public agency. This person serves as the project manager who negotiates the project and facilitates the interface between the agency and the various departments within the railroad, such as Real Estate, Design, and Opera- tions. UP officials say they believe this arrangement provides consistency in the handling of projects. In addition, the single point-of-contact ensures that the project has a consistent man- ager as it moves through the various departments for review. The process by which a project progresses through the review stages varies significantly depending on the project type. A signal project is reviewed by other offices than those that review grade separation projects. UPâs standards differ signifi- cantly from the national AREMA standards. UP says that its higher volumes, greater speeds, and diverse terrains require more restrictive standards than would apply to short-line rail- roads, which generally rely on AREMA standards. It notes that its standards document, prepared jointly with BNSF, provides significant detail for project developers who need to identify UP requirements. UP indicates that addressing public projects is a corporate priority, as reflected by the extensive staffing for them. It has a field staff of public project managers supported by staff in the track, structures, and signal design groups. The safety projects have a particularly high corporate focus and are sup- ported by the entire organization. As with the other Class I railroads, UP sees problems with project submittals. They fall into predictable categories, includ- ing the following: ⢠The use of consultants who are not familiar with UP require- ments. Submittals do not address the requirements noted in the UP published guidelines. ⢠Unrealistic project schedules from the agencies. If the initial project schedule from the agency assumes an arbi- trary schedule without the railroadâs input, it likely will not be met. ⢠Provisions for UP future expansion, such as future track, access roadway, and spreading of existing tracks to 20-ft spacing, are not addressed. Encroachment onto UP right- of-way is assumed as being acceptable, which it is not. ⢠Projects do not provide for uninterrupted rail service dur- ing construction. ⢠Scope changes affect the track, railroad bridge alignment, location, or elevation, requiring the railroad to start over with the review process. ⢠Failure by the agency to get the railroad involved in discus- sions early in the projectâs development. ⢠Failure of agencies to deal with right-of-way issues. ⢠Lack of consideration by agencies regarding the effects of constraining railroad operations or right-of-way. ⢠Substandard designs or substandard materials.UP officials indicate that public agencies use a variety of mechanisms for communicating with it. Some state DOTs have annual meetings with the railroads, such as in Iowa. There, the DOT brings together all its personnel involved in projects, including maintenance forces. Other states, such as Nebraska, Texas, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Illinois, have quarterly project-review meetings. Regardless of the details, UP officials say they encourage continuous communication. UP officials say they frequently experience a lack of under- standing among public agencies as to the length of times that are acceptable for railroad interruptions. They note that their system lacks the redundancy that highway networks have. A closure on one section of the railroad will have complicated ramifications for movements across the country. Rail system network computer simulations that model the effects of rail interruptions are so complex they cannot be run on desktop computers but require more powerful parallel processors. The impact analyses can estimate the amount of delay, and the subsequent costs of that delay to the entire network. UP has had experiences with public agencies that want to minimize project cost without an appreciation for how closures or inter- ruptions can create significant costs for the railroad during construction. Such issues are more common with cities and counties, because they have fewer projects and less experience with the railroads, UP officials indicate. Similarly, the smaller agencies often develop early project cost estimates that later prove to be inaccurate. UP officials strongly recommend getting the railroad involved from the start of the planning process. Early involve- ment can identify where UP will require higher than the minimum design standards. UP frequently encounters local consultants designing to minimum standards and basing esti- mates and schedules on those minimums. If the design involves the mainline, UP officials may require more robust design than the minimums in the AREMA standards to com- pensate for the greater speed, tonnage, and grades that their trains must handle. UP officials strongly recommend the following practices to improve the agreement and review processes: ⢠Select engineering firms with extensive railroad experience. ⢠Work from preapproved standard legal agreements. ⢠Begin the coordination process as early as practicable. ⢠Create regular and continuous lines of communication. ⢠Have a centralized point of contact at the highway agency. UP reports that some of the DOTs have centralized points of contact, which they believe operate much more effectively than ones in which agreements are split among the DOT dis- tricts. When UP coordinates consistently with one team, it experiences fewer problems.
86UP reports that it tracks project submittals and provides comments within 45 to 60 days. It particularly tracks safety projects to keep them on schedule. For bridge projects, at- grade crossings, or parallel roadway work projects, it would like to see project coordination begin at the project concept stage. For safety projects, it would like to begin coordination with a preliminary engineering agreement. For quiet zone proposals, it would like to begin coordination when the community pub- lishes a notice of intent to seek a quiet zone. Kansas City Southern Railway The Kansas City Southern Railway (KCSR), based in Kansas City, Missouri, operates 3,226 miles of track in 10 states from southern Texas and Louisiana north to Chicago and Min- neapolis. Its parent company owns a connecting railroad in Mexico, giving it a significant presence in the Mexico-to- Canada NAFTA freight markets. Being one of the smaller Class I railroads, KCSR does not have a public projects division. It handles public project reviews through its normal engineering divisions. Its officials indicate they will provide their design standards to public agencies whose consultants want them to determine how KCSR stan- dards differ from AREMA standards. When submittals are received, the KCSR engineering staff give them a preliminary review and then assign them to one of several outside consult- ing firms that conduct a detailed review. KCSR says it provides comments generally within 30 days and does not have a significant backlog of projects awaiting comment. It does not recommend extensive presubmittal coordination because it would prefer to have a set of prelimi- nary plans to review as it makes its comments. The existence of plans, KCSR staff say, provides specificity about the project, which its consultants and its internal divisions can review in detail. KCSR staff report experiencing the same types of issues that the larger railroads reported regarding submittals: plans sometimes fail to accommodate track expansion; local agen- cies do not want to pay for reviews or rights-of-way; design standards are not met; or that years pass between submittals. However, the KCSR officials indicate that their relatively âflatâ table of organization, their ability to quickly send project reviews to consultants, and their lack of review backlog indi- cates that their current processes work effectively for conduct- ing project reviews. KCSR relies on outside consultants for several functions that other, larger railroads perform in-house. Track construction, flagging services, and inspection of construction are generally provided by outside contractors for KCSR. One innovation that KCSR provides is standardized rail- road protective liability (RPL) insurance. RPL is required inaddition to standard insurance to protect the railroad from claims involving accidents that occur as a result of or dur- ing construction on or near the railroad. The inability of contractors to get protective liability insurance has been cited by some state DOTs as a problem. Also, railroads and their consulting engineers say that incomplete or inaccurate policies are a common cause of delay in approving project agreements. KCSR has a standing agreement with CFR Risk Manage- ment, a regional insurance carrier that serves the southwestern United States. CFR provides a program of short-term railroad protective liability insurance policies that meets the require- ments of KCSR. The railroad includes a link from its website to the insurance carrierâs website, where contractors can find an insurance application and a rate schedule. For instance, protec- tive liability coverage for a transverse installation of an overhead wire or an underground pipe can be obtained for $1,480 to $1,800. Longitudinal encroachment utility installations can be insured on a per-foot basis, with costs of up to $3,350 for up to 10,000 feet of installation. Installations greater than 10,000 feet require rating and approval. Insurance can be provided for projects up to $10 million for many common types of construction and maintenance proj- ects, including bridge painting, private grade crossings, grade crossing maintenance, bridge surface repair, borings, bridge inspection, and other similar work. Amtrak Amtrak operates 21,000 miles of track serving more than 500 destinations with its long-distance and commuter rail services. Amtrak coordination on public projects is compli- cated because of the electrification of its system, higher oper- ating speeds, and the increased liability caused by passenger service. Not only must the usual concerns regarding rail safety and operations be addressed during construction but the elec- trical lines that serve its track must also be accommodated. The electrification issue has led Amtrak to identify a subset of prequalified consultants who not only can address its rail issues that are common to all railroads but who also are qual- ified to address the electrification issues. Amtrak is willing to share that list of consultants with public project sponsors who seek to conduct projects that interact with Amtrak rights-of- way. On some corridors, Amtrak trains run up to 150 mph, which not only increases the risk of derailment but also means that trains enter a construction zone much faster and with less warning than would be the case with slower, freight lines. Amtrakâs busiest routes are on the crowded Northeast Corri- dor, which travels through some of the most densely popu- lated regions of the country.
87The electrification and rail passenger concerns have led Amtrak to develop additional design and construction stan- dards. Amtrak does not publish those standards but will share them on a case-by-case basis with design firms that are work- ing on behalf of public agencies. Amtrak strongly encourages the development of standard agreements and the use of standing coordination meetings, such as it has with the Massachusetts Turnpike and the Mas- sachusetts Highway Department. It advises public agencies that coordinate with it on projects to appreciate its enhanced concerns about safety and indemnification. They note that Amtrak operates under federal statutes that created it. Those statutes prohibit it from subsidizing freight or local passen- ger service. They interpret that to mean they cannot con- tribute anything of value to serve projects that do not directly address its core mission. The corporate approach is that âbut for your projectâ it would not have any additional cost for project reviews, right-of-way contributions, or interruptions in train schedules during construction of a project. As a result, Amtrak takes an absolute stance that it is prohibited from cost-sharing on projects or from providing free design or construction services.References 1. Public Project Information for Construction and Improvement Projects That May Involve the Railroad. Public Projects Group, CSX Trans- portation, Jacksonville, Fla., 2009. www.csx.com/share/media/ media/docs/CSX_Public_Project_Manual-REF21857-REF22268.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2010. 2. Norfolk Southern Corporation. Review Schedule for Public Improve- ment Projects. www.nscorp.com/nscportal/nscorp/Customers/ Publications/pdf/SEC3_MISC4.pdf. Accessed Oct. 14, 2009. 3. Norfolk Southern Corporation. Guidelines for Design of Grade Sep- aration Structures. www.nscorp.com/nscportal/nscorp/Customers/ Publications/Design%20of%20Grade%20Separation%20Structures. Accessed April 1, 2010. 4. Norfolk Southern Corporation. Property Access. http://realestate. nscorp.com/nscrealestate/RealEstate/Real_Estate_Services/Property_ Access. Accessed April 1, 2010. 5. Norfolk Southern Corporation. Wireline/Pipeline and Fiber Optics. http://realestate.nscorp.com/nscrealestate/RealEstate/Real_Estate_ Services/Wireline_Pipeline_and_Fiber_Optics. Accessed April 1, 2010. 6. BNSF Railway. Public Projects. www.bnsf.com/tools/pubprojects. Accessed April 1, 2010. 7. BNSF Railway. Property Permits and Licenses. www.bnsf.com/ markets/services/realestate/permitslicenses.html. Accessed April 1, 2010.
