National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix A - Railroad Processes for Addressing Agreements
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Analysis of Survey Results." 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 99

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.

88A P P E N D I X B Analysis of Survey ResultsSurvey of State and Local Agencies A web-based survey was designed to query state and local transportation agencies about best practices, streamlined processes, and challenges in the relationship between state and local agencies and railroads. An e-mail message with a link to the survey was sent to each state department of trans- portation and to each member of the project advisory panel. Approximately 400 local transportation officials were sent an explanatory letter about the survey, which included a link to it. The survey listed 27 suggested best practices that the team had identified during earlier research stages. It asked each respondent to indicate if they used any of the listed 27 practices and to rate their effectiveness. It also asked for additional best practices. The survey asked if the responding agency had any metrics to measure the effectiveness of agency best practices on railroad approval time frames or cost. It provided respon- dents the opportunity to do a self-assessment rating of their agency’s performance in submitting plans and submittals that addressed railroad needs in review of projects. It requested agency perspectives on reasons for successful and unsuccessful project reviews. It provided an opportunity for responding agencies to list specific issues in coordination between railroads and highway agencies that needed to be addressed. It also asked agencies if they had problems with indemnification or liability insurance. Overall there were 39 responses. Of these, 27 were from state departments of transportation, 11 were from cities, and one response was from a state commerce commission. The follow- ing section discusses the survey questions and the responses received. Most respondents were DOT program managers, railroad coordinators, or local program managers (Figure B.1). The respondents were involved in multiple railroad coordination functions (Figure B.2). Most of the respondents (34) wereinvolved with general roadway and bridge projects, followed by Section 130 project managers (23). Section 130 projects are federally funded rail safety projects, such as the installation of lights and gates. Figure B.2 shows that respondents covered all major functions; their responses should reflect perspectives in all the relevant subject areas. More than 25% of the respondents handled more than 100 projects in the past 3 years, while more than 50% handled more than 30 projects (Figure B.3). This information indicates that the survey respondents were actively involved in proj- ects with the railroads and that the feedback should provide a good representation of practices, agreements, and issues in the working relationship between railroads and local and state transportation agencies. Agencies interact with multiple railroads. Figure B.4 shows that 20 respondents interact with the short-line railroads. Eighteen work with Union Pacific Railroad (UP), and 16 work with BNSF Railway. This may mean that the overall responses received through this survey may be more influenced by the interactions of agencies with the short lines and UP and BNSF. Figure B.5 indicates that about 30% of the respondents were local agencies and the remaining were state agencies. The Illinois Commerce Commission is a non-DOT state agency that responded to the survey and has been counted as a state agency. Effectiveness Rating of Various Best Practices Table B.1 shows the best practices and their effectiveness. The practices with the top votes as “excellent” are shown bracketed in bold and in rank order in the “excellent” column. The top practices rated as “good” are also bracketed. In general, the most highly ranked practices related to communication and shared expectations. Six of the top eight most highly rated best practices related to having central points of contact, clear scopes for reviews, and frequent, ongoing communication.

89Other Real Estate Manager Railroad Coordinator Local Government Program Manager Local Government Project Manager DOT Program Manager DOT Project Manager Number 3 0 10 10 4 20 2 0 10 20 30 Figure B.1. Role of respondents.Funding of Railroad Capacity Projects Railroad Inspections and Safety General Roadway and Bridge Projects Section 130 Projects Number 12 15 34 23 0 20 40 Figure B.2. Respondents’ functions.More than 100 Between 31 and 100 Between 11 and 30 Fewer than 10 Number of Responses 11 10 7 11 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Figure B.3. Number of projects addressed.10 205 15 Canadian Pacific Canadian National KCS NS CSX BNSF UP Responses 4 3 Other Railroad 20 4 6 7 16 18 0 25 Figure B.4. Number of survey respondents who interact with each railroad.10 20 255 15 Local Agencies State Agencies Responses 11 28 0 30 Figure B.5. State versus local responses.

90The top-ranked “acceptable” strategies also are highlighted with brackets. Have a DOT Central Point of Contact “Have a DOT Central Point of Contact” is one of two practices that tied for the most highly rated practice overall, with 22 respondents rating it as an “excellent” or “good” practice. This high ranking in the survey was validated in interviews with state DOTs. It was also rated high during discussions about best prac- tices at the first advisory panel meeting and in interviews with state rail coordinators and with the railroad personnel. Washington DOT has established a process of having a cen- tral point of contact who works with the districts to coordinate and prioritize agency projects and activities with the railroads. The district takes over the lead role once the project construc- tion work begins. This model of operation ensures that all ini- tial coordination and agreements are completed with the right people being involved at the right time. Once the project work begins, the district responsible for the project takes the lead and the central office point of contact plays a support role while still being actively involved with the project. This allows the district and the technical experts to work on the details of the project while the central point of contact remains informed about progress. By having the district lead the day-to-day project work, the agency ensures that additional approvals from cen- tral office do not add time to the project schedule or cause additional delays. In this model, the central office handles all communication and coordination on project tasks, prioritizes project sched- ules, and ensures that agreements and approvals are on sched- ule while the district technical contacts work directly to resolve technical issues and keep the project work on schedule. This model enables the central point of contact to help with any additional coordination required between the central office and the railroad when required. Examples of agencies using this practice are the Florida, Nebraska, Iowa, Washington, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Texas, New Mexico, and Ohio DOTs; the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Depart- ment; and the Illinois Commerce Commission. Although the railroads were not asked to participate in the survey, in separate interviews the railroad personnel also strongly supported having a central point of contact in the DOTs. Conduct Formal Crossing Diagnostics The second of the two practices that tied for highest number of responses for an “excellent” practice was “Conduct Formal Crossing Diagnostics.” This practice was one that the railroadsalso identified in interviews as a best practice. It was rated excellent by several states and local agencies. It relates to con- duct of a specific safety diagnostic analysis of a crossing before lights, gates, and other safety measures are deployed. Although ranked as a good practice, the issue was not cited as a frequent cause of project delay. Establish Ongoing Formal Communication Channels Between the Highway Agency and the Railroad “Open Communication: Establish Ongoing Formal Commu- nication Channels Between the Highway Agency and the Rail- road” received the second highest number of responses as “excellent.” In interviews with state transportation agencies, this practice was identified as one of the essential elements to successful workings between the railroads and the state trans- portation agencies. This practice was listed as a reason for success of projects and reviews. Open communication was cited as one of the key ele- ments for good working relationships between railroads and state transportation agencies. Agencies such as the Pennsylva- nia DOT and Washington DOT attributed meetings and ongo- ing communications to facilitating easier exchange of ideas, expediting revisions to agreements, expediting approvals, and building trust between the teams. Open communication was attributed as being especially helpful when the teams disagreed with each other on projects, schedules, agreements, billing, or processes. Some agencies in the survey and interviews noted that agency personnel sometimes avoided scheduling meetings to avoid confrontations when there was a difference of opinion or ideas between the teams. One of the respondents in the survey noted, “Sometimes, an adversarial relationship develops between the railroad and the highway agency on some projects. Some DOT project man- agers try to avoid having to deal with the railroad, if possible.” In agencies where open communication was integrated into the workings between agency and railroad personnel, both teams often found workable solutions to challenges. Have One Empowered Railroad Point of Contact to Coordinate Project Issues “Have One Empowered Railroad Point of Contact to Coor- dinate Project Issues” received the third highest number of response as “excellent.” This also corroborated agency feed- back during interviews that having multiple points of con- tact in the railroads created confusion and delays. It led to inconsistency in dealing with project issues and to waste of resources. Railroad personnel noted that this approach led to

91(continued on next page) Practice and Its Effectiveness Excellent Good Acceptable Poor N/A 1 Have DOT Central Point of Contact. Have one empowered point of contact at DOT to coordinate railroad project issues. 12 10 7 3 5 2 Conduct Formal Crossing Diagnostics. Do not program a crossing project without a formal diagnostic study. 12 9 6 2 8 3 Open Communication. Establish ongoing formal communication channels between the highway agency and the railroad. 11 10 8 6 1 4 Have One Railroad Point of Contact. Have one empowered point of contact at the railroad to coordinate project issues. 10 13 6 5 3 5 Require Early Scoping. Require early predesign scoping on project concept between railroad and DOT. 9 14 7 3 5 6 Have Preliminary Engineering Agreements. Have formal agreements that allow railroads to be compensated for engineering advice during preliminary development—even if a project is not eventually constructed. 8 5 7 3 13 7 Schedule Regular Meetings. Have standing monthly or quarterly meetings— in person or via phone or video—to address project schedules with the railroads. 8 8 7 6 8 8 Have Formal Points of Concurrence. Establish agreed-on, regular points of coordination, review, and concurrence between DOT and railroad on projects. 8 16 5 4 4 9 Use Experienced Engineering Firms. Select only engineering firms that have extensive railroad experience. 4 12 10 1 10 10 Standard Plan Notes. Ensure railroad construction requirements are included in DOT plans. 5 12 10 1 9 11 Require Preconstruction Meetings. Require a preconstruction meeting between contractors, DOT, and railroad for any significant project. 5 10 13 1 6 12 Hold Regional Conferences. Bring neighboring states and railroads together to share best practices, common issues. 2 10 4 8 12 13 Dedicate Personnel for Reviews. Have dedicated personnel either in the railroad or with outside contract engineering firms to focus solely on highway project reviews. 6 10 13 3 5 14 Coordinate Projects for Locals. Have the DOT coordinate railroad reviews and submittals for the local governments. 2 9 11 5 9 15 Ongoing Reviews. Require reviews at the 30%, 60%, and 90% plan stage. 5 9 13 3 6 16 Master Agreements. Develop programmatic approaches between railroads and states. 6 8 8 3 12 17 Standard Billing Agreements. Have you streamlined or standardized the billing process with the railroads? 6 9 9 4 8 18 Hold Annual Meeting. At least annually have the DOT and railroad staffs meet to identify common needs, approaches. 7 7 6 7 9 19 Enact Statutes to Close Crossings. Enact state statutes that reward, encourage, or require closures whenever possible. 7 7 9 2 11 20 Programmatic Right of Entry Agreements. Develop standard agreements for routine right of entry for processes such as bridge inspections. 6 4 4 9 13 21 Have Standard Review Times. Have the DOT and railroad agree on standard review times for submittals. 5 6 7 7 11 22 Prequalify Firms. Develop additional prequalification for engineering firms to ensure they have railroad expertise. 0 6 10 1 18 Table B.1. Best Practices and Their Effectiveness

92Practice and Its Effectiveness Excellent Good Acceptable Poor N/A 23 Education. Require education for DOT project managers and other employees to ensure they understand railroad requirements. 2 6 14 3 11 24 Produce Manuals. Provide DOT staff procedure manuals on how to prepare acceptable railroad plans and submittals. 1 8 11 5 11 25 Develop Escalation Procedures. Have agreed-on escalation path to resolve issues that cannot be solved at lower staff level. 4 3 9 8 12 26 Reengineer Section 130 Program. Because railroad grade crossing counter- measures are often similar, reengineer the state’s Section 130 process to standardize and streamline it between the DOT and the railroad. 2 6 7 5 16 27 Use NHI Course. Send staff to NHI course on railroad crossing projects. 0 4 9 7 16 Table B.1. Best Practices and Their Effectiveness (continued).railroad staff receiving calls from state agency personnel regarding projects about which they had no knowledge. Often the railroad person receiving the call had no involve- ment or information about the project and would have to redirect the calls. Besides being a waste of time, it often led to confusion and difficulty in prioritizing project needs and often caused project delays. The business model of the railroad did not involve having separate engineering and technical staff devoted to public proj- ects. Often the same divisions within the railroads worked on both public and internal projects. Most Class I railroads have a public project manager who coordinates the work between the agencies and the railroads. Prioritization of project work was also done by the public project manager, an area outside the railroad technical team. Because of this separation of the railroad technical team, direct calls to them from state and local transportation agency staff often did not result in good responses. Having an empowered railroad point of contact helped coordinate public works within the different areas of the railroad and made for smoother and quicker information flow. Agencies that had a single or few designated points of contact with the railroads reported it was easier to revise sched- ules and project priorities if a situation required shuffling of priorities. Require Early Scoping “Require Early Scoping” received the fourth highest number of responses as “excellent.” This practice enables both sides to bring up differences and concerns early in the process. It was also one factor that helped eliminate or change alternatives that either railroads or the agencies had strong reservations about. It often helped minimize the so-called “being held hostage to last-minute decisions,” in which concessions are demanded late in a project when the project sponsor cannot affordfurther delays. One of the agencies in the survey noted, “When comments and needs are expressed early and are consistent throughout the development of the project, [it] leads to a more successful outcome.” Preliminary Engineering Agreements Three practices tied for the fifth highest number of responses rated as “excellent.” One of the three is the practice of having preliminary engineering agreements that allow railroads to be compensated for engineering advice during preliminary development, even if the project is not eventually constructed. At the advisory panel meeting, there was much brainstorm- ing and discussion about this practice and overwhelming support to change the regulations that covered how and when railroads could be compensated for preliminary engineering work. The advisory panel in its first meeting discussed the fact that the railroads as a private business had to charge for the hours of work done irrespective of the final decision to construct a project. Several states have said FHWA will not allow compensating the railroads until the final agreement is signed. Many projects in the preliminary stages never get to construction or have a final agreement signed. Railroads never get compensated for such work. One of the railroads discussed having hundreds of thousands of dollars of uncom- pensated expenses attributed to its public projects division as a result. The participants at the advisory panel meeting felt that in view of the project objective to smooth relationships and devise mitigation strategies to improve the workings between rail- roads and local and state transportation agencies, this issue needed to be resolved and a better and simpler mechanism to compensate railroads for preliminary engineering work needed to be devised.

93Railroads, like other private businesses, are accountable for profitability of their unit and operations. There is a natural inclination to focus on work that brings in revenue versus work that will not be compensated. The state agency representatives as well as the railroads felt strongly that the inability to pay for preliminary engineering reviews was one cause of discordance and delays between railroads and transportation agencies. FHWA officials indicated later that they are initiating a review of the policy. Schedule Regular Meetings “Schedule Regular Meetings” is the second of the three prac- tices that received the fifth highest number of responses as “excellent.” This was also identified as a good practice during interviews with the Class I railroads. The railroads identified this practice as one of the factors in expediting reviews and approvals on projects. They noted that the frequency of the conference calls varied from biweekly to monthly to quarterly depending on the maturity and progress of projects. These scheduled calls helped address project issues and schedules and enabled timely correction on activities that were off- schedule. Have Formal Points of Concurrence “Have Formal Points of Concurrence” is the last of three practices that received the fifth highest number of responses as “excellent.” This practice helps to ensure adequate com- munication and shared understanding of progress by both railroads and the highway agencies. Generally, the points of coordination and concurrence were recommended to be at the preliminary planning stage, at 30% plan completion, 60% completion, and 90% completion. These four stages allow for early agreement on the preliminary concept scope, and then further concurrence as that general scope translates into an increasingly detailed set of project plans. Top Five Practices Rated “Good” The following practices rated as the top five “good” practices: 1. Have formal points of concurrence; 2. Require early scoping; 3. Have one railroad point of contact; 4. Use experienced engineering firms; and 5. Standard plan notes included in DOT plans. Three of the five top practices that were rated “good” prac- tices were also among the top rated “excellent” practices. “UseExperienced Engineering Firms” was rated “good” by a third of the respondents. This practice was unanimously supported by the six Class I railroads that were interviewed as well. They repeatedly noted that one of the most common causes of proj- ect delays and disagreements is receiving incomplete or unac- ceptable plans from an engineering firm that is unfamiliar with the railroads. They noted that local communities often hire local engineering firms, which are not always experienced with railroad practices. The issue of including standard plan notes involves incor- porating into bid documents standard “boilerplate” railroad requirements that can involve issues such as flagging, main- tenance of traffic during construction, adherence to rail- road safety standards, and other such standard requirements. When railroads and the highway agencies agree on such standard language, it can be included in all project agree- ments and bid documents without requiring additional legal review. The standardization saves time on project reviews and reduces legal costs. Such standard provisions also clarify the bid process by informing contractors as to what require- ments they can expect during construction. Not only did the highway agencies rate this as a good practice, it was repeat- edly endorsed by the railroad public project personnel and the railroad attorneys. Overall Highest Recommended Practices Following is a list of the top five practices with the highest num- ber of combined responses for “good” or “excellent” rating. 1. Have one railroad point of contact and have formal points of concurrence; 2. Require early scoping; 3. Have one empowered DOT central point of contact; 4. Open communication: Establish ongoing formal commu- nication channels between the highway agency and the rail- road; and 5. Conduct formal crossing diagnostics before programming a crossing project. Lowest-Scoring Practices Three practices received the lowest scores when combining the total number of responses rating a practice as “good” or “excellent”: 1. Use National Highway Institute courses; 2. Prequalify firms; and 3. Develop escalation procedures. A National Highway Institute course on highway/railroad grade crossing is offered. It includes instruction on managing different types of grade crossing projects.

94The issue of prequalification involved the concept of devel- oping an additional set of qualifications for firms to be con- sidered for highway/railroad projects. Nearly all firms that propose on highway projects need to be prequalified by their state highway agencies. This suggestion was that an additional set of prequalifications should be developed to further screen out firms that do not have explicit expertise in dealing with the railroads. Such additional prequalification had been suggested by some railroad personnel. The issue of escalation procedures is common in “partner- ing,” but was not highly rated by the survey respondents. It involves understanding how long project reviews or other deci- sions are to take. If participants cannot reach agreement on project issues within a set period, they would have to escalate the issue to higher level officials within their organizations. The strategy is incorporated into partnering agreements to let both sides understand at what point an impasse is no longer accept- able and the issue should be elevated for resolution. Other Identified Best Practices Respondents were given the opportunity to identify other best practices that they may have developed in addition to the 27 suggested in the survey. The following summarizes the 24 additional best practices that respondents reported they have developed. Staff Expertise, Mature Processes, and Dedicated Railroad Personnel • Iowa DOT: Iowa has developed an effective primary high- way crossing surface program implemented with an expe- rienced staff. • Washington DOT: It funds a public project position at a rail- road to work primarily on WSDOT projects. Washington DOT suggests this same strategy could involve more than one state sharing costs for a manager housed at the railroad. • Nebraska DOT: It developed a productive relationship with a dedicated person at the railroad with whom they work on a daily basis. • City of Colorado Springs: It pays for a private consultant selected by the railroad to review city plans. Use of Technology • Georgia DOT: It uses electronic plan submissions to avoid lost plans. It is also working toward master agreements to streamline processes, including preliminary engineering and construction payments. • North Dakota: It scans agreements into PDF form for review by the railroad legal departments and reports that the practice reduces processing time.Standard Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding • Illinois DOT: It reports that master agreements have helped reduce the processing times of agreements, although there still are delays in approval of bridge plans and returning signed agreements. • Montana DOT: It is currently in the early stages of develop- ing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with BNSF. This MOU will define standard railroad agreements and project review and approval times. • Louisiana DOT: It has a master agreement for at-grade crossings that helps its coordination process. Regular Meetings and Open Communication • Minnesota DOT: It reports that it tries to maintain good relationships by meeting as frequently as possible with the railroads. • Louisiana DOT: It reports that it is essential to maintain good and ongoing communication with the railroads. • Alaska DOT: It notes that its good communications with its railroad and the fact that it has only one railroad to deal with makes good coordination possible. • Arizona DOT: It reports that it hosts monthly meetings with the railroad, involving state and local government agencies to assist on their projects. It also interacts with other state agencies and road authorities to help them understand the railroad coordination process. • Florida DOT: It notes that it pursues open communication and good working relationships between its department and railroads. • Nebraska DOT: It reports that the major best practice is to have good communication with the railroads. Early Coordination and Contact with Railroad • South Carolina DOT: It recommends getting early coor- dination and comments from railroads. • California DOT: It recommends the following: get early involvement of the railroad’s public projects staff; provide railroad only with plans that show impacts to its facilities; describe projects thoroughly to complement the plans; and hold regular meetings on the progress of all projects in all phases of Section 130 funding. • Oregon DOT: It recommends early contact with the rail- roads during scoping and at the beginning of projects. Start any right-of-way process as early as possible. Other • Minnesota DOT: It reports that it always does diagnostics at railroad grade crossings and involves the railroad and, if pos- sible, the local road authority.

95• City of St. Paul, Minnesota: It has a standard special provi- sion for construction of roadway bridges over railroads that clearly defines what the contractor is required to do to sat- isfy safety requirements of the railroads. Performance Measures A common finding throughout the project has been that few agencies have performance measures regarding project rail- road reviews. The lack of measures has prevented the quanti- tative testing of strategies, performance, and effectiveness. Qualitatively, there appears to be consensus as to the effec- tiveness of many strategies. In the survey, respondents were asked to list if they had per- formance metrics related to the process of developing project agreements. Although three agencies reported they had mea- sures, they did not report what they were, and the project team was not successful in obtaining them. Agencies’ Assessment of Their Performance Out of 39 respondents, nine assessed their agency’s perfor- mance in submitting plans that meet the review needs of the railroads as “excellent.” Another 25 rated their performance “good,” five said their performance was “acceptable,” and none scored themselves “poor.” Reasons for Success Respondents were asked in an open-ended question to list the primary reason that successful project reviews are successful. It should be noted that “success” was not defined but rather was left to the respondents to define on the basis of their own judgment. Most of the responses were brief, as is common in surveys. No attempts are made here to elaborate or infer addi- tional details; rather, the responses are reproduced almost verbatim. The responses reiterated the oft-stated opinion that a successful project review process requires early coordination, timely submittals, ongoing coordination, and experienced par- ticipants. Following are the open-ended responses categorized by topics. Early Coordination and Submittals • Missouri DOT: Timely submittals with enough information to decide approval. • Oregon DOT: Early coordination and plan review, which is required by Oregon law. • Arizona DOT: Early coordination with railroad and project designers. • Minnesota DOT: It is always better to deal with issues at the beginning of the design process. When this doesn’thappen, it is difficult to redesign the projects to meet rail- road standards. • Montana DOT, Right-of-Way Bureau, Utilities Section: Successful project reviews are successful when there is  Early submittal of the project designs and standard agreements to the railroad.  Prompt responses, negotiations, and execution of stan- dard agreements from all parties (DOT and railroad). • California DOT: Early involvement of railroad. Negotiate to keep the railroad whole while being a good steward of agency resources. • Texas DOT: Predesign meeting with project stakeholders to clearly establish between the highway agency and the railroad company design parameters, constraints, and expectations. • Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department: Meet in a timely manner. All parties understand what their role is in the job. • City of San Jose, Department of Transportation:  Review process is begun well in advance of proposed construction.  Follow up (with e-mails or phone calls) is done after plans are sent out for review. Clarification is provided if needed.  Funding is secured, so that reviewers know the project will be done. Early, Detailed Submittals • Florida DOT: Detailed work descriptions and plans are pro- vided to the railroads, plus follow-up correspondence and phone calls ensure success. • Idaho DOT: When comments and needs are expressed early and are consistent throughout the development of the proj- ect, [it] leads to a more successful outcome. • Nebraska Department of Roads: We have staff in the rail area that review plans first and then work with our roadway and bridge staff for further reviews and then meet with rail- road representatives as needed. • Caltrans: There are no reviews per se. Review done by con- stant teamwork until contracts are signed and then ongoing teamwork until the final bills are paid. • Georgia DOT: Completeness of plans and thorough review by railroad. • City of Colorado Springs: Project reviews are successful when the comments are clear and indicate the basis behind the comment. For example, citing the standards or criteria behind the comments is helpful to the submitter. Dedicated Resources and Knowledgeable Staff Involvement • Iowa DOT: Iowa DOT works to involve the right people in project reviews, including the railroads, local highway authorities and DOT staff.

96• Washington State DOT: Designers are knowledgeable about railroad design and coordination requirements. There are as few points of contact between the agency and railroad as possible to promote consistency and predictability. Railroad has a clear and accurate assessment of the priority level for the project. • City of Overland Park, Kansas: It reports it is adequately staffed so that the proper amount of time can be spent on reviews. • City of Salem, Oregon: Projects are successful when the railroad gives adequate time and attention to reviewing and commenting on plans received from local agencies. Relationship, Ongoing Communications, and One Point of Contact • Pennsylvania DOT: Ongoing communication. • North Dakota DOT: Communication. • Texas DOT: Open communication and consultation be- tween highway and railroad design engineers during the project development process. • City of St. Paul, Department of Public Works: Have a per- sonal point of contact on both sides to work out issues. • Alaska DOT&PF: Usually involves a small number of play- ers and the same players. So everyone knows each other and is used to working together. • Arizona DOT: Understanding process and good working relationship with railroad. Regulations and Master Agreements • Louisiana DOTD: The railroads’ master agreements for at-grade crossings are important. It helps to have a special person handle a larger area than go through each local engi- neer’s office for each job. • Illinois Commerce Commission: As a regulatory agency, the ICC has certain rules that railroads must follow with regard to filing plans and cost information for review and approval. Unsuccessful or Delayed Project Reviews When asked to identify what tends to result in unsuccessful reviews, 32 responses were received. Perhaps predictably, the responses were generally the opposite of the ones cited as lead- ing to successful projects. The most typical problems cited were a lack of responsiveness by the railroads, changing project requirements, staff turnover, and related issues that tended to prevent the timely and consistent review of submittals. Many of the comments are negative toward the railroads. It should be noted that the railroads were not given a compara- ble opportunity to comment anonymously about highwayagencies. The railroads were interviewed and many were can- did about shortcomings they experience in highway agency submittals. However, the railroads were careful not to appear critical of individual agencies and thus tempered many of their comments so as to not to offend particular state or local depart- ments. In these comments, references to specific railroads were deleted, as were the names of the commenting agencies. Delayed Agreements, Incomplete Submittals, and Late Coordination • Project submittals are transmitted to the incorrect railroad office within the company. Some projects are delayed, await- ing local government commitments to improve adjacent facilities. • Untimely submittals that do not include enough informa- tion. • There probably are reasons but the railroad’s response is very slow. • Not beginning coordination early enough. • Different people use different approaches. Lack of consis- tency within the railroad company and within different parts of the DOT on the same issue. • Railroad not responding in a timely manner to plan reviews. Sometimes railroad does not provide complete plan review response. • Unrealistic time frame for the project. • Delay in getting response from railroads. • Project reviews appear to be slow or delayed due to the num- ber of people that need to approve the reviews. One person in the chain can delay the reviews because they are too busy to deal with them in a timely manner. Scheduling and Timelines, Slow Responses, and Delayed Feedback and Comments • Projects are unsuccessful when the railroad is “too busy,” “that is not my responsibility, you need to talk to . . . ,” or never heard from during the plan review stage. • Slow reviews by railroads, slow cooperation by railroads. • Not done in a timely fashion. • Delays in obtaining railroad agreements and right-of-way. • The primary reason for delay: The railroad does not respond promptly. • The timelines of the DOT and railroads sometimes do not move at the same pace. Changes are difficult to get done quickly. • Inconsistent comments and an ever-changing target. Lack of comment by railroads is sometimes a problem. • Railroads have been unwilling to provide a strict timeline for project review. Most timelines contain minimum time frames but no maximum time. This makes it impossible

97for the transportation agency to adhere to a fixed project schedule. Disagreement and Changes to Plans or Agreements • Late plan changes can delay process since right-of-way can- not then be changed. • Lack of consultation between highway and railroad design engineers during the project development process. • The railroad tries to change standard agreement language. • Usually a railroad will make some demand that the state can- not agree to, which involves agency attorneys, and the result- ing negotiations delay the project. • Railroad company changing or revising design guidelines during the project development process or after the railroad has given preliminary approval of the design. Communication, Trust, and Relationship • Sometimes an adversarial relationship develops between the railroad and the highway agency on some projects. Some DOT project managers try to avoid having to deal with the railroad if possible. • Lack of communication. • Lack of internal communication. Lack of Predesign Meetings, Disagreement on Design, and Roles and Responsibilities • Disagreement over signal designs. Identifying roles and responsibilities during construction (including railway construction). • Not conducting a predesign meeting with project stakehold- ers to clearly establish design parameters, constraints, and expectations. Staff Turnover and Lack of Knowledge • The local engineer may not be familiar with a railroad type job and may not respond as quickly as for a “normal” job. Also, the railroad may take a while to bill. Also, it takes a while for the railroad job to fully go through the audit review. • Turnover of staff at railroad and road agencies. Issues with Funding and Indemnification • Railroads have historically required complete indemnifica- tion of liability even for their own negligence. To us as a pub- lic agency, we find this to be an absurd requirement of their legal staff. We have been forced to condemn our right to construct. The judge throws out the indemnification, but itdoes not result in a formal agreement. We end up paying (high) fees for flagging and whatever the railroad decides to bill for. Since these costs are not identified up front, the feds may not reimburse the local agency for these expenses. On our latest job, the city paid out $750,000 in flagging costs on a $5.5 million bridge. • There is a lack of desire on the part of the railroad to adapt quickly to change (like the implementation of quiet zones). • Uncertainty exists regarding the viability or funding of a project. • No follow-up is initiated. Additional Issues The final item on the survey asked respondents to “identify what specific issues you would most like to see addressed in regard to the coordination between highway agencies and railroads.” The most frequently cited issues referred to rail- road insurance and force account costs; delays in railroad reviews; perceived demands by the railroads for plan changes; and a general sense of heavy-handedness by the rail- roads. Several respondents called for mandatory project- review timelines to be required in federal statutes. This issue and the issue of railroad insurance costs are addressed in Review of Federal Regulations (see pp. 40–47). They are referred to only briefly here. The general comments revealed more of the negative sentiments that highway agencies express privately about the highway–railroad agreement process. As has been stressed repeatedly in this research, because there are so few metrics regarding project schedules or the quality of submittals, it is not possible to indepen- dently measure the validity of these complaints. However, the complaints are quite common and appear to occur throughout the country. Force Account Work, Billing, and Insurance The comments regarding railroad force account work were common in the survey and in interviews with the states. The railroad labor agreements call for work on the railroad associ- ated with highway projects to be performed by railroad forces. The railroads bill for the crews’ direct time, materials, and equipment and all overhead. In addition to the costs involved, the highway projects also must provide lead time for railroad crews to be available to conduct the work. This has led to spo- radic complaints of highway agencies facing contractor delay charges because railroads have not completed their portion of work on time. Highway agencies also have complained about receiving poor documentation on bills from railroads, undocumented costs, and costs for work they believe to be “betterments.”

98The following comments represent the sentiments expressed by some state and local respondents: • Railroads should treat the public’s money with the same care with which they would spend their own money. • Railroad companies should acknowledge that highway capacity improvement projects that cross or affect existing railroads have public benefits, including benefits to the same freight network of which the railroads are a part. • Railroads should not expect indemnification for railroad negligence. • Railroads should acknowledge that highway agencies have a right to construct or maintain their bridges. • Railroads should be judicious in requiring high insurance limits and only require them when absolutely necessary. • Local governments should receive federal support when dealing with railroads. • Railroads should provide prompt, accurate, itemized bills for work completed. Timeliness of Reviews A major theme throughout the project has been the time- liness of reviews. This theme appeared frequently in the open- ended comments. • Time, time, time. Changes to design from inception of the project until execution of the agreement. Often, a design that is acceptable in the preliminary stages is not acceptable to the railroad at the 90% design level. This change over time is very difficult for a state transportation agency. Often the change is due to a policy issue that has changed for the railroad. • More rapid and consistent response by railroads. • Development of a timeline for project review that is upheld. • Defined timelines to get tasks completed. Prompt responses from railroad companies. • Better response time from the railroads for the agreements and right-of-way process. • A general issue . . . is that the railroad ignores our request, or takes too long to respond. We try to take into account their nonresponsiveness, but sometimes that’s not possible. • Timely response. We have experienced projects that by the time railroad gets to the agreement, the project has had to slip in our program and have had funding lapses waiting on the railroad. • More timely response during the design and construction phases. • Hire more public projects staff. Streamline railroad process for engineering and legal reviews, including establishing a mechanism where the reviewer is prompted to contact the agency if there are questions or concerns regarding a submittal.• DOTs should be able to hire structure engineers to review railroad bridge plans in-house to expedite review. The structure engineers will have to be approved by the railroad. • For simple projects such as replacing a crossing signal, it seems that one reason for delay is that the railroad needs to have the signal built for the project. These signals are nearly all the same and every railroad should be able to keep a sup- ply of these in a central location so the extra time to have a signal built would not be necessary. • The problem with DOT projects that impact railroads lies in communication and understanding of railroad operation, maintenance, and internal administration. Cost estimates are not well explained. • Generally, we get along with all of the railroads; it’s just their slow response time which can adversely affect a let- ting schedule. • We need a consistent time frame so that some sort of plan- ning can be used to help protect the public at problem crossings. Community Relations • The railroad needs to be more concerned with local agency projects. Often there is little help provided during the design stage, and requests for changes are made during con- struction. In addition, they show very little concern for local community issues when they perform maintenance and upgrades to their system. • Railroads need to be more friendly to the local people. • The current process seems to be skewed in favor of the rail- roads. Changes to create a more balanced process would be desirable. • The process is very one-sided. The railroads control the schedule and the design. There is absolutely no room for negotiation. Often, due to time constraints, state agencies must agree to railroad demands in terms of design changes and bridge ownership. These issues have cost the states a lot of additional money and potential delay to projects. In one case, a railroad refused to follow a schedule in an agreement, which resulted in our governor getting involved to keep a project “on track.” In another instance, a contractor was paid a $500,000 delay claim because the railroad would not install a crossing in accordance with the schedule. Railroads will not sign an agreement with any penalty clause, so there is no recourse when these situations occur. Survey Summary and Conclusions The survey results illustrate the dichotomy that has been apparent throughout this project. Both the railroads and the highway agencies agree generally about which strategies work best to expedite project agreements. Both sides have taken

99steps to incorporate these best practices into their processes. Despite this common basis of agreement, there still are persis- tent complaints from state and local highway agencies of lengthy reviews, nonresponsiveness from the railroads, and arbitrary insistence on additional costs to accommodate railroad needs. These complaints give the impression that such problems are widespread. However, at the same time, when state officials in rail divisions of highway agencies are interviewed, they indi- cate that they have good working relationships with their rail- roads and that most project agreements proceed smoothly.The degree to which problems and delays occur remains elusive. To date, most highway agencies and railroads have not documented baselines for project reviews or tracked the degree of deviation from those baselines. It is apparent that state and local highway officials express consistent dismay over the agreement process, but the actual percentage of proj- ects that are delayed remains unclear. Only four of 39 respon- dents reported having any metrics regarding the agreement process, and those four entities could not readily produce their metrics.

Next: Appendix C - Model 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!