Communicating Railroad–DOT Mitigation Strategies (2014)

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.

11 CHAPTER 5 Milestone Activities 5.1 Creation of the Community of Interest The discussions with stakeholders from both transportation agencies and railroads had revealed that there were many obstacles to the adoption of the innovations. One primary factor involved the differences in the cultures and objectives of both organizations. The objectives of transportation agencies as public entities responsible to the taxpayers are different from those of a private, for-profit company with responsibilities to its shareholders. Having previously encountered challenges with coordination and communication on projects, both sides were skeptical about working together to successfully implement the innovations. There were also concerns of failure and of the high cost and time that would be required for the implementation. Proactively addressing these obstacles, the project team worked to make sure that an environment conducive for productive and collaborative discussions and for brainstorming and thinking outside the box was created. The many factors considered in recruiting members from transportation agencies and railroad companies to join the COI included  Ensuring that the COI discussion environment was conducive to facilitating the dissemination of the innovations and best practices;  Setting up an environment for future widespread dissemination;  Seeking members representing different regions of the country, so as to ensure that differences in expectations of transportation agencies and railroads associated with factors such as terrain, environment, weather and other regional factors were accounted for;  Having transportation agencies and railroad representatives on the COI who are familiar with or who had worked on projects involving road and rail projects, and preferably members who had interacted with each other on projects;  Having members who could promote ideas both horizontally as well as vertically across both organizations; and  Recognizing that both DOTs and railroads are short staffed and that key staff members from both organizations are pressed for time, provide the necessary support to members to ensure that their time is devoted to the significant tasks of learning from COI peers, disseminating the benefits of the best practices and project innovations, and of championing them. Taking the adoption of innovations to address common challenges beyond the tipping point would make their use routine with assured potential for widespread adoption. In selecting members to the COI, the project team focused on having adequate representation of stakeholders

12 from appropriate organizations that could, in the long term, facilitate taking the adoption of the innovations beyond the tipping point. Because the majority of the road and rail projects involved the Class I railroads, the team also wanted to make sure that the COI had representation from at least 70 percent of the Class I railroads. The team successfully recruited representatives from CSX, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF,) Union Pacific Railroad (UP), and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), covering over 90 percent of Class I railroad freight movement (as shown in Figure 5.1), and representatives from Genesee & Wyoming, the largest of the short line railroads (to represent that segment of the railroad community). Figure 5.1. Distribution of freight movement by railroads. To ensure national representation from transportation agencies, the team engaged representatives from state DOTs to cover all four regions of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) shown in Figure 5.2. Representing the AASHTO regions are eight state DOTs as follows: Region 1. Pennsylvania Region 2. Florida and North Carolina Region 3. Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan Region 4. Texas and Washington 38% 13% 11% 32% 6% BNSF CSX NS UP Others

13 Figure 5.2. The four AASHTO regions. Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation, the Canadian province of Manitoba’s agency equivalent to a state’s DOT transportation agency, was included to provide an international perspective. Representatives from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) were also engaged as COI members. The outcome of this deliberate approach to recruiting members was the creation of a very collaborative and productive community of interest of stakeholders. This community of interest was the first such forum that provided a non-threatening environment for facilitated and open discussions between the stakeholders. The meetings that followed were set up to create an environment conducive for members to collaborate and discuss challenges more openly and to brainstorm ideas and potential solutions. Members felt comfortable to think creatively, share new ideas, ask questions, and brainstorm solutions without fear of any repercussions. 5.2 The Role of the COI A facilitated discussion was conducted during the COI kickoff meeting in Kansas City, Missouri. After deliberations, the members decided on the following as the role of the COI:  Serve as advocates and subject matter experts to identify and validate best practices.  Brainstorm and provide insight on updating and improving the innovations and best practices identified by the project team.  Engage in productive and outcome-based discussions that reflect win-win strategies.  Advise on improving the outreach and diffusion of best practices for national adoption.  Share the innovations with peers and participate in dissemination forums.  Advocate for the best practices and get buy-in from peers in the railroads and highway agencies.  Volunteer to beta test innovations.

14  Add new innovations to an existing innovation catalog.  Assist with prioritizing innovations for nationwide dissemination. 5.3 The Mission of the COI Through a facilitated discussion during the COI kickoff meeting, members arrived at the following as the appropriate mission for the project’s community of interest: The mission of the project’s community of interest is to identify and assist with the dissemination and adoption of innovative strategies to expedite the approval and implementation of quality highway projects that cross or abut railways while ensuring the protection and safety of the public, employees, contractors, and state employees; enhancing rail operations; and optimizing resource utilization for railroad and highway agencies. 5.4 Community of Interest Meetings During the course of this communication and dissemination project, the community of interest formally held four meetings. The kickoff meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri, in April 2012. The remaining three COI meetings were virtual meetings with screen sharing and presentations by members and roundtable facilitated discussions. Before each COI meeting, one-on-one discussions were held with each COI member, and preparatory materials were emailed to them. To provide members the opportunity to review and provide feedback, draft proceedings of each meeting were also sent to members. Feedback received from members was incorporated and final proceedings were emailed to members. 5.4.1 COI Kickoff Meeting The COI kickoff meeting included an overview of the project, discussion about the common challenges faced on projects, and the importance and significant positive impact of mitigating the challenges. The meeting included a review of an initial list of innovations that had been identified by the project team and the importance of successful widespread implementation of the innovations. It included roundtable discussions on member experiences and the roles and mission of the COI to initiate the innovation dissemination. All COI members participated in the day-long kickoff meeting. At the kickoff meeting, the StarIsis team presented the challenges and relevant innovations identified by the team during the initial research project and set the stage for a collaborative discussion forum. The project team communicated the project objectives and the expectations to all COI members. A significant amount of time was invested in roundtable facilitated discussions to ensure that members had a common understanding of the approach, as well as the need to develop win-win strategies for successful national adoption of the project innovations. With such a background, the team was able to highlight the benefits of implementing the project innovations and best practices for both parties. After the initial presentation and discussions, members of the COI felt

15 more comfortable with the goals of the project. They felt assured of the team’s support in facilitating win-win outcomes, and several members volunteered to participate in the dissemination activities. The meeting also resulted in increased interest in the project, with requests for including additional members to participate in the COI meetings. To cater to this overwhelmingly positive response, the team created two levels of membership: one as a full member with voting rights if a vote was required, and the second, for associate members who could attend meetings but would not having voting rights. This approach was appreciated and accepted by all the members. This inclusion of members proved productive because, as new members joined the COI discussions, they got exposed to the partnering environment and the collaborative discussions of the group. Discussions during the kickoff meeting were the start of the dissemination campaign, with initial sharing of the information about the project innovations to the nine state transportation agencies and the five railroads. The presentation was followed by a facilitated roundtable discussion. During the roundtable discussion, members shared their experiences with implementing some of the project innovations. They also presented new challenges and brainstormed on solutions. The final count of the number of challenges faced was numerous. To work within the resources available, members debated and selected several high priority innovations for consideration and focus. The kickoff meeting set the stage for the collaboration between members of the COI. Members brainstormed and developed the mission statement. They volunteered to test several innovations and to be involved in the dissemination of the innovations to peers. They also volunteered to support the adoption of the innovations and identify new strategies to expedite the various activities on projects involving the two parties. Using the synergy between the members from the initial COI meeting, the StarIsis project team and the COI members participated in various national and regional meetings to disseminate information pertaining to the project innovations. Together with COI members, the project team presented at several AASHTO regional meetings. Working in partnership with the COI members, the team was also able to make presentations at various non-AASHTO conferences and meetings. This exposed and generated interest from a larger national audience for the project innovations. One such exposure led to the Colorado DOT getting engaged in a project discussion at a 2012 Western Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (WASHTO) presentation. This led to follow-up discussions and the DOT getting engaged in using the project innovations to address challenges it faced on projects involving railroads. 5.4.2 Subsequent COI Meetings At subsequent COI meetings, the multidisciplinary group of experts from the railroads, transportation agencies, FRA, and FHWA were requested to share information about the project innovations they were implementing. This sharing of successes exposed other members to details of implementation by peers. It also opened up the forum for discussions, allowing members to

16 pose questions about the implementation and to brainstorm on how the innovations could be implemented in their specific environments. During these meetings, COI members also volunteered to advocate for the benefits of the project innovations at other appropriate transportation and railroad conferences and discussion forums. The COI meetings also served as fertile grounds to encourage members to become champions individually or to pair up and champion the implementation of various innovations. Each “champion pair” consisted of a railroad and a transportation agency that paired up to implement an innovation for better partnership, streamlined processes, or improved project delivery. Each virtual meeting consisted of facilitated roundtable discussions. Presentation materials were shared using screen sharing. The virtual meetings were successful in achieving the objectives of the project. At the meetings, members actively engaged in sharing their experiences with the implementation of the innovations. Members also discussed challenges they faced and sought the feedback from other members. The end result was that members were actively engaged in trying out innovations, in the sharing of information relating to the communication and dissemination project with peers, and in arranging new forums for dissemination of information pertaining to the innovations. The COI meetings served as the first successful forums between the stakeholders. These discussion meetings actively engaged the five railroads that carry over 90 percent of rail freight and over 15 percent (8 of the 52) of transportation departments in the United States. The summary of the dissemination efforts, champion-pairs, and the partnering memorandum of understanding is described in the following sections. 5.5 Dissemination Sessions: Presentations, Roundtable and Panel Discussions, and Webinars The project’s dissemination campaign involved the sharing of details of the project innovations by the StarIsis team members and successful implementers from the COI through various forums. These included a. The project community of interest meetings (These were discussed earlier in the report.); b. Panel discussions; c. Workshops; d. Electronic dissemination—webinars; e. One-on-one meetings and telephone calls; and f. Presentations at various transportation agency and railroad meetings and conferences.

17 5.5.1 Presentations, Panel Discussions, and Workshops As the project progressed, an environment of partnering developed and members got involved in other dissemination efforts. Members were involved in presentations at Western Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (WASHTO), Mid America Association of State Transportation Officials (MAASTO), and the Standing Committee on Rail (SCORT) meetings of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Working with the project team, COI members arranged for presentations, workshops, and panel discussions on the project at the 2012 American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of- Way Association meeting in Chicago, at the 2012 National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) meeting in Florida, and at three safety conferences. The various dissemination efforts completed or planned at the time of the writing of this report are summarized in Table 5.1. The roundtable and panel discussions included participation by members from New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Texas DOTs and from CSX, BNSF, NS, and Genesee & Wyoming railroads. The meetings and engagement of the community of interest members resulted in getting the word out about the project innovations to additional transportation agencies and representatives of the railroad community. At the time of the writing of this report, two more dissemination efforts have been scheduled for the project. A project presentation arranged by Mr. Ahmer Nizam, Railroad and Utilities manager of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has been scheduled for April 30, 2014, involving BNSF, WSDOT, StarIsis, and FHWA at the Utah 2014 AASHTO Committee on Utilities, Right-of-Way and Outdoor Advertising Conference. Another panel discussion involving CSX, BNSF, NS, Florida DOT, Texas DOT, and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), moderated by StarIsis, has been arranged by Mr. Tony Bellamy, Director Public Projects from CSX. The panel discussion is scheduled for June 18 at the 2014 Southeastern Rail Safety Conference in Montgomery, Alabama. Although only four such dissemination efforts were initially planned for this communication and dissemination project, ten sessions were conducted, and at the time of writing this report two additional events have been planned for April 30 and June 18, 2014. This increased extent of the dissemination activity conducted during the project demonstrates the level of interest in the project among the stakeholders. These activities are a good reflection of the momentum and partnership that has been generated to date on the project.

18 Table 5.1. Dissemination and Information Sharing Events Location Type of Event and Participants 1 Western Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (WASHTO): Colorado Presentation by WSDOT and StarIsis 2 Mid America Association of State Transportation Officials (MAASTO): Kentucky Presentation by Iowa DOT and StarIsis 3 Southeastern Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (SASHTO) Meeting: Maryland Marketing materials 4 AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Rail (SCORT): Maine Presentation by FRA 5 American Railway Engineering and Maintenance- of-Way Association (AREMA) Meeting: Chicago Presentation by StarIsis 6 National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD): Florida Workshop organized by Texas DOT and conducted by StarIsis. 7 Highway-Rail Safety Conference: Texas Panel discussion: NS, CSX, BNSF, and Florida, Texas, and North Carolina DOTs. Moderated by StarIsis. 8 Highway-Rail Safety Conference: North Carolina Panel discussion: NS, CSX, G&W, and Florida, Texas, and North Carolina DOTs. Moderated by StarIsis. 9 Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, 2014: Washington, D.C. Presentation: Texas DOT, BNSF, FHWA, and StarIsis. Moderated by SHRP 2. 10 Highway-Rail Safety Conference: Massachusetts Roundtable discussion: FRA, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania DOTs, CSX, NS, and BNSF. Moderated by StarIsis. 11 Subcommittee on Utility, Right-of-Ways and Outdoor Advertising: Utah. Scheduled for April 30, 2014 Presentation by WSDOT, BNSF, FHWA, and StarIsis 12 Highway-Rail Safety Conference: Alabama. Scheduled for June 18, 2014 Panel discussion: FHWA, NS, CSX, BNSF, and Florida, Texas, and North Carolina DOTs. Moderated by StarIsis.

19 5.5.2 Webinars The project team successfully conducted two webinars during the communication and dissemination project. A third webinar initially planned for the project was substituted by a panel discussion. The webinars were designed to showcase the solutions as well as the collaboration between the parties involved. The webinars were held in summer of 2013. With over 425 attendees from 275 different locations participating, the TRB webinar was very successful in reaching out to a wide national audience. The FHWA-sponsored webinar had 182 registrations and 112 sites online. Based on the participant login information of the FHWA webinar and the TRB SHRP 2 Tuesdays Railroad–DOT Mitigation Strategies Webinar, every state transportation agency attended one or both sessions, with the only exception being Hawaii. 5.6 Champion-Pairs The project team also worked to have as champions several DOTs and railroads, initially from the COI membership and subsequently from other entities, which were interested in implementing and piloting the project innovations. The team sought to identify personnel at higher levels from such champion organizations, to facilitate at the organizational level the acceptance of, or at least consideration for, use of project innovations. These can be considered vertical champions who push an innovation down through their organization. The team sought the support of senior leadership (CEOs) from the Florida and Michigan DOTs and senior executives from Florida, North Carolina and Texas DOTs who later joined the COI. These executives supported the involvement of their agency personnel on the COI. At the same time, peers from DOT rail divisions and members of groups, such as members of specialty committees at AASHTO, were also sought to promote or explain innovations to their peers. Both types of champions played an important role in the spontaneous and the formal diffusion of ideas. Resulting from discussions at the early COI meetings, a total of fourteen DOT-railroad pairs initially agreed to become champions and pilot several of the project innovations. Over the course of the dissemination efforts, additional DOT-railroad pairs have volunteered to pilot these innovations. Several states have also applied for implementation assistance from FHWA to implement various project innovations. Aside from the project innovations, several tools are also being developed as part of the SHRP 2 Projects on Railroad–DOT Mitigation Strategies, including several training lessons, a library of resources, and a web tool called the Collaborative Solutions Suite. Collectively, these are expected to facilitate the training of personnel new to railroad–DOT projects and the dissemination of the project innovations. The Collaborative Solutions Suite will also be available for use by the project champions. The state DOTs and railroads interested in adoption or that have already adopted these innovations include 1. The states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Texas have been selected for implementation assistance by FHWA to implement a variety of products from the project innovations.

20 2. North Carolina DOT, Florida DOT, Washington State DOT, and Iowa DOT are intending to use the Collaborative Solutions Suite for training agency personnel on best practices. 3. Pennsylvania DOT is interested in implementing the flagging agreement and streamlined process with CSX and other railroads. 4. Pennsylvania DOT would like to implement a bridge inspection agreement. 5. Texas DOT is interested in implementing the master construction agreement with Union Pacific. 6. Washington State DOT would like to use the lessons to train local agencies on various best practices. The end objective is to have the local agencies also adopt the best practices and use examples of the agreements included in the lessons and library. This is a new area of use of the project innovations. Mr. Nizam from WSDOT noted, in one of the COI meeting updates, that “Reaching local agencies will be an exciting outcome of the communication and dissemination effort.” 7. Washington State DOT would like to use the Agreement Builder, an online tool included in the Collaborative Solutions Suite, to expedite developing new agreements. 8. Washington State DOT is also considering adopting several of the best project management practices addressed in the lessons. 9. Georgia DOT is interested in testing, piloting and adopting some of the Project Innovations. 10. Georgia DOT would like to use the Agreement Builder. Agency personnel would also like the Agreement Builder to be enhanced to address other types of agreements that are currently not included in the tool suite. 11. CSX would like to use the Agreement Builder to develop new master agreements for Indiana DOT and update the existing agreements with the Illinois DOT. 12. All nine participating state DOTs and railroads in the COI are extremely interested and have urged SHRP 2 staff and StarIsis to continue the community of interest. COI members are very engaged and would like to continue being a part of the COI. The members shared this sentiment during the final COI meeting. 13. Michigan DOT is currently reviewing the project innovations and identifying those that will best work in their state. 14. Norfolk Southern is looking at some of the flagging best practices included in the project innovations for adoption in several states. 15. CSX and NS would like to implement several of the communication and coordination strategies included in the project innovations. CSX, NS, and Texas DOT have already moved forward with adopting various collaboration strategies. 16. NS and CSX are working with various states to develop master agreements. They have both made significant progress on this front with Kentucky. 17. BNSF has already used the partnering memorandum of understanding (partnering MOU) agreement from the project innovations and signed one with Colorado DOT. BNSF is interested in signing similar partnering agreements with other state DOTs.

21 18. North Carolina DOT is interested in implementing several of the design-build best practices. 19. New Jersey DOT and North Carolina DOT are interested in streamlining the workflow for agreement processing and developing reports to measure performance. 20. New Jersey DOT has expressed interest in having the training for agency personnel, implementing seven best practices, implementing flagging and right-of-entry master agreements, and having a facilitated workshop to identify and address gaps in current agency processes to streamline coordination and agreement processing. 21. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDTD) has expressed interest in assistance with streamlining agreement processing, implementing category specific master agreements for grade crossings, warning devices, and new construction, and in receiving training on the project innovations. While it is clear that many states are facing the challenges addressed in the project and would like to implement several of the best practices, the project team has not had an opportunity to follow up with all such states. The information provided above has been limited to the interest shown by those states that have been actively engaged in the communication and dissemination project or have followed up with the project team as a result of the dissemination efforts. 5.7 Signing the Partnering Memorandum of Understanding One of the project milestones was to recruit a transportation agency and railroad pair willing to sign a partnering MOU. To successfully accomplish this task, multiple meetings were held with several representatives of transportation agencies and railroads. During these meetings, the team shared examples of other similar memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between transportation agencies and other groups, including the example between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the contractors association. Using other examples of MOUs, the team was able to explain the benefits of using the partnering MOU. One of the transportation agencies exposed to the MOU was the Colorado DOT (CDOT). The initial discussion with CDOT on use of the project innovations to address delays on projects involving railroads took place at the WASHTO meeting in July 2012. Follow-up discussions with several CDOT personnel focused on some of the challenges faced by the Colorado DOT on projects involving railroads. The agency had downsized and had also gone through some internal reorganization that affected some of the offices working on projects involving the railroads. These discussions revealed that CDOT has many projects with BNSF that could benefit from the use of various project innovations. Following multiple discussions and several presentations on the project innovations that could address some of the challenges, the CDOT team decided that it could benefit from improved partnering with the railroads. This led to the start of discussions between the DOT and BNSF railways regarding signing a memorandum of understanding to start the partnering effort.

22 Project team members facilitated various discussions between BNSF and CDOT to ensure concurrence and interest within both organizations to work together to sign a partnering memorandum of understanding. In late 2012, the StarIsis team drafted language to address some of the areas that were important to both parties. Both parties provided feedback and edits to the drafts. The teams held several meetings to address language and provisions detailed in the partnering MOU. The draft language went through several iterations before it was finalized. The partnering MOU was signed by Lyn Hartley, Director of Public Projects at BNSF, on June 31, 2013 and by Timothy J. Harris, Chief Engineer of Colorado DOT, on August 1, 2013. The MOU covers the following:  Section 1: Background and Objectives  Section 2: Partnering  Section 3: Appointment of Liaisons  Section 4: Preliminary Project Notice  Section 5: Preliminary Engineering Agreements  Section 6: Project Tracking Process  Section 7: Central Repository  Section 8: Project Status Conferences  Section 9: Timely Responses  Section 10: Stages for Review of Non-Design-Build Projects  Section 11: Staff Training  Section 12: Escalation Procedure  Section 13: Performance Measurement  Section 14: Resourcing  Section 15: Annual Meeting  Section 16: Standard Agreements  Section 17: Update of Memorandum  Section 18: Preemption and Exclusivity The various elements of partnering covered by the partnering MOU are illustrated in Figure 5.3.

23 Figure 5.3. Elements of partnering. The StarIsis team worked closely with Kamie Young, BNSF Public Projects Manager, Charles Meyer, Branch Manager, Traffic and Safety, CDOT, and Matt Flores, Utility Engineer, CDOT, to finalize the language and to get the MOU signed. The Colorado DOT-BNSF MOU is the first of its kind between a transportation agency and a railroad. By having this MOU signed by the Colorado DOT and BNSF Railway Company, the StarIsis team has achieved one very important measure of success in the communication and dissemination project. The partnering MOU is a non-legal document that will allow both parties to make continuous improvements and update the language to meet the changing needs of both parties as partners. Based on the various discussions held at the COI meetings relating to the MOU, it is expected that once the details of the CDOT and BNSF partnering MOU are successfully implemented, other peers will see the benefits and be interested in adopting similar MOUs. This will further catalyze ongoing and continuous improvements between transportation agencies and railroads.