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.

24 CHAPTER 6 Summary of Case Reports from Champion-Pairing The facilitated discussions that took place during the COI also helped emphasize the importance of the best practices to the participating COI members. The discussions and knowledge transfer between the members of the community of interest and the progress made by members serve as a good case study. The discussions and progress made by the champions are summarized under the following categories: 1. Business Process Improvements 2. Flagging 3. Improvements to Grade Crossing Safety and Funding of Crossing Projects 4. Funding 5. Expediting Communication and Coordination 6. Streamlining 7. Improving Agreement Processing 8. Shared Benefits 9. Collaborating to Reach out to Local Agencies 10. Information Access and Data Management 11. Master Agreements 12. Design-Build Projects 13. Training and Knowledge Transfer 6.1 Business Process Improvements Work involving the transportation agencies and railroads almost always require the signing of agreements. Therefore, significant efficiencies and resource savings can be achieved by streamlining the process of reviewing and signing of agreements. Mr. Darin Kosmak, Deputy Director of the Rail Division of the Texas DOT notes that “with over 10,300 total rail route miles, the most among states in the United States and close to 9,800 rail crossings, Texas DOT is constantly seeking ways to streamline processes and to improve partnering with the railroads.” Two-thirds of the Texas DOT projects that involve railroads are with the Union Pacific Railroad. Improvements in process involving the DOT and UP result in significant savings for both parties. Paul Worley, Director of the Rail Division for North Carolina notes that “with over $540 million dollars of projects in North Carolina that involve railroads, implementing some of the project innovations streamlining processes and improving coordination has helped the agency to keep on schedule and within cost and scope in delivering projects.”

25 6.1.1 Streamlining Agreement Processing of Routine Projects In Texas, historically, all agency project agreements with Union Pacific are sent to the UP main office in Omaha for review and approval. To expedite the process and optimize the use of resources, Texas DOT and Union Pacific have devised a new process where all agreements for routine maintenance and bridge inspection projects that are less than $25,000 and that require flagging services will be sent instead to the regional UP office in Texas for review and approvals. This streamlined agreement processing has Union Pacific delegate signature authority to their regional offices for routine maintenance and inspection activities that only require UP flagging services. With more than three-fourths of the 200 agreements sent to the Omaha office for review and approval being redirected to the regional office, the review and approval of these routine agreements have been expedited. Additionally, offloading of these reviews from the UP Omaha office enables them to focus on reviews of other agreements that expedite other work between the DOT and Union Pacific. 6.1.2 Proactive Approvals on Non-Invasive Projects Obtaining flagging resources is a challenge for transportation agencies and railroads. To address this challenge, the Texas DOT has streamlined internal processes to separate out projects that are around or involve UP property that are non-invasive. These projects do not require flagging services. With a shortage of flaggers, separating these projects will expedite the review and approvals from the railroads. By developing a list of non-invasive projects and sharing them with the railroads ahead of the project start date, the agency can move forward with these projects without causing any concerns or contentions with the railroads. Proactively sharing the list with the railroads also saves the time that would otherwise have to be spent in discussions and unnecessary project reviews. 6.1.3 Improving Contractor Practices One of the challenges faced between DOTs and railroads pertains to contractors’ insurance not being current. In Texas, the process involves the Texas contractor submitting an executed right- of-entry agreement to the railroads. There are currently no steps to ensure that the contractor has purchased the insurance amount indicated in the agreement before entering the railroad right-of- way. This has been a source of concern for the DOT and the railroads. Texas DOT has been negotiating with its contractors and with the railroads to implement standard agreements or provisions for insurance, indemnification, flagging, and rights-of-entry. On the policy side, the DOT is working with the Texas Association of General Contractors to update standard bid specifications for when contractors are working in railroad rights-of-way. The contractor will be required to have the insurance in place before entering the railroad right-of-way. The requirement of each railroad varies and these updates will address the specific requirements of each railroad. The new process is expected to eliminate or minimize cases where the contractor has not followed through with the railroad to get either the right-of-entry agreement or proper insurance

26 before entry on the railroad right-of-way. By imposing the new controls, Texas DOT can formally acquire the right-of-entry agreement, verify the additional levels of insurance, and provide more predictability to the railroads on the contractors’ insurance. The agency is also working on establishing a web link specific to each railroad that will make it convenient for contractors to access and fulfill the requirements of each railroad before working on projects involving the railroad right-of-way. 6.2 Flagging 6.2.1 Streamlined Flagging This practice is a result of the close collaboration between CSX Railroad and Florida DOT (FDOT). This is one of the project best practices that ranked high among community of interest members. Mr. Fred Wise, Manager of the FDOT Rail and Motor Carrier Operations Office said at the project kickoff meeting that “flagging remains an important part of the agency’s coordination efforts with CSX.” FDOT has several major construction projects involving railroads in process at any given time totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. The timely availability of flaggers is very important to keeping these projects on schedule. Project delays can increase project costs significantly and negatively impact the agency’s overall rail program. The FDOT practice that has been very effective involves charting out the annual need for flagging by project for each day and sharing it with CSX at least six months ahead of the need. The day-to-day availability and use of the resources are closely tracked, and at least once in two weeks the agency holds meetings with CSX to discuss the status and requirements for flagging resources on projects. The tracking and meetings allow both parties to take corrective action and keep the construction of projects on schedule. During the project kickoff meeting, Mr. Charles Gullakson, Assistant Chief Engineer of CSX, noted that CSX has a close working relationship with the Florida DOT. He said, “Issues arise, such as an occasional shortage of flaggers, but those issues often come down to a need for communication. CSX often needs ample lead time to find additional employees for flagging, and the scheduled meetings and planning discussions helps CSX address these resource needs.” The collaboration has resulted in keeping the projects involving CSX and Florida DOT on schedule. 6.2.2 Flagging Coordination and Costs The Washington Department of Transportation (DOT) had experienced many problems in the coordination of railroad flagging, resulting in increased flagging and project costs. The agency’s flagging process previously authorized the contractors to coordinate directly with the railroads with little oversight. This led to sloppy coordination, including requesting railroad flaggers unnecessarily and of dismissing flaggers prematurely. The agency streamlined and tightened the coordination process to create more oversight and eliminate these unnecessary costs. With the streamlined process in place, the DOT rewrote the general flagging provisions to be consistent

27 with certain railroad union requirements. This resulted in streamlined flagging activities, better project management, and proactive planning for flagging and lowering of flagging costs for the DOT. 6.3 Improvements to Grade Crossing Safety and Funding of Crossing Projects Several of the COI member states and railroads have been focusing on improving grade crossing safety. Both DOTs and railroads also work closely with Operation Lifesaver to improve safety around train tracks. Mr. Bellamy from CSX discussed the importance of railroad safety and the new CSX campaign titled, “Play it Safe around Railroad Tracks.” Mr. Wyatt from Norfolk Southern said, “Safety is the first priority for NS.” He said that Norfolk Southern’s safety goals are dedicated to the safety of employees, customers, and communities, and that the company works toward continuous improvement of its safety efforts. Ms. Young from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad discussed the railroad’s safety campaign, known as “Officer on a Train.” The campaign takes police officers on a train during its normal route. The officer then looks for drivers who do not follow railroad safety laws such as stopping for trains. Mr. Worley shared the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) safety initiative titled, “Be Rail Safe, Respect the Crossings, Respect the Track.” Mr. Wise, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), shared the agency’s numerous efforts with Operation Lifesaver and the agency outreach to various Florida communities. Mr. Wise also shared several safety initiatives by FDOT, including collaboration between the DOT, Operation Lifesaver, and SunRail, reminding people to “keep off the tracks.” The group passed out colored signs and safety literature during peak hours at grade crossings. Mr. Kosmak from Texas Department of Transportation (DOT) talked about the Texas Operations Lifesaver campaign on rail safety, “To a Moving Train, You are Like a Tomato.” Mr. Ronald Ries, Staff Director of the Crossing Safety & Trespass Prevention Division of the FRA, discussed the Operations Lifesaver campaign, “See Train, Think Train.” This, Mr. Ries explained, is a public service announcement (PSA) campaign which aims to reduce pedestrian and driver injuries and fatalities around railroad tracks by highlighting behaviors that put people at risk. Launched with the help of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the PSA campaign features bilingual television, radio, print, and billboard advertisements aimed at educating drivers and pedestrians in the hopes of saving lives. Both state and railroad COI member practices include safety-related communication and outreach to communities, improving grade crossings, closing crossings where appropriate, replacing at-grade crossing with grade separation structures, and the funding of state and local grade crossing projects. Funding for grade crossing improvements has been a challenge for some of the DOTs. Examples of some of the practices by members are as follows.

28 6.3.1 Highway-Railroad Safety Risk Management Plan The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) has elevated the importance of safety of agency personnel working around the tracks. In coordination with the railroads and the Iowa Rail Advisory Committee, the agency has developed a safety risk management plan that addresses the risks associated with agency let construction projects involving the railroads. The plan provides guidance and direction for field personnel working on or around the project site. As part of implementation of the plan, the agency will be conducting additional training for such agency personnel. This training will be part of the normal training curriculum. The agency expects to have approximately 500 attendees to the 2014 spring training sessions. This spring training is set aside for field personnel. Additional training sessions have been scheduled that will provide training to a total of 1,400 agency personnel in 2014. 6.3.2 Focus on Safety Florida Department of Transportation’s (DOT) focus on safety projects and its participation in funding of safety projects has been very well received by the railroads that operate in Florida. Florida DOT and the network of railroads operating in Florida collaborate on several activities. One of the areas of collaboration is on improving grade crossing safety. Working with railroads to conduct diagnostics at grade crossings every summer is now a routine activity for Florida DOT. Florida DOT participates with FRA in the safety inspection of rail facilities and operations. The DOT’s eight inspectors address track, operating practices, signal and train control, motive power and equipment, and hazardous material handling. All Florida DOT (FDOT) work in this area supplements the FRA’s inspection activities through the State Participation Program. 6.3.3 Grade Crossing and Safety Projects BNSF puts a lot of emphasis on safety. The railroad is constantly working with agencies to improve crossings and to close crossings that are not necessary. As part of this initiative, the BNSF public projects division partners with each and every transportation agency to conduct diagnostic reviews at grade crossing. 6.3.4 Closing Crossings and Installing New Grade Separation Structures Texas DOT has established additional process improvements that address safety by closing at- grade crossings and installing new railroad grade separation structures. In such projects, the railroad’s cost participation is in line with federal regulations to contribute 5 percent of the cost of the new structure on the railroad right-of-way. The agency has developed a template and a formula for the computation of the cost of the structure. This template is based on a theoretical structure and can be used by other state DOTs. This template will be included as a resource in the Collaborative Solution Suite and the virtual library for access by railroads and transportation agencies via the web.

29 6.3.5 Extending Life of Grade Crossings Iowa DOT has streamlined processes for the repair and resurfacing of highway-railroad crossings. The improved collaboration resulting from the standard process has enabled Iowa DOT to reduce its backlog of state-funded crossings that are in need of repairs and resurfacing from eight to ten years down to two years. The improvements in the quality of materials used have extended the life of the crossings from three to four years to over 13 years, while also improving the safety of the crossings and approaches. Working with the railroads, the agency has also collaborated with local agencies by providing recommendations on maintenance practices to retain the rideability for local crossings and approaches throughout the life of the reconstructed crossings. 6.3.6 Collaborating to Maintain Quality of Resurfacing and Keep Trains Operating Illinois Department of Transportation (DOT) has collaborated with the railroads to implement a practice that ensures the quality of work on resurfacing of crossings while meeting the schedules and operating timelines of the railroads. In this practice, the railroads manage the resurfacing of the crossings and the approach roads. The practice involves the railroads working directly with the contractor recommended by the agency’s district to get the work done. Discussing the benefits of the practice, James Morris, Project Support Engineer of the Illinois DOT, notes that “By using the contractor recommended by the DOT, the quality of material and work required to extend the life of the crossing is achieved, satisfying the DOT’s needs.” The general approach is that the DOT provides the routing information and the railroad, working with the contractor, implements the necessary detours. The district pays for all the work done. This process also provides the railroads the necessary control of the project and enables them to plan the work to meet the timelines and operating windows necessary to keep the track lines open during the resurfacing work projects. 6.3.7 Safety and Outreach to Communities Many of the COI members have communication and training for employees and contractors to address safety around railroad tracks. An example of outreach to the community can be seen in the Florida outreach on the Miami project. The DOT has been working with the Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC) a Class II railroad on the Miami project. The Miami project is an example of outreach to an area where trains will be reintroduced close to communities. The Miami project will restore services directly to the port of Miami that were not available for seven years. The project will run through downtown. Since it has been a long time since the residents have seen trains in this section of town, the agency is working on outreach to local residents and businesses on safety around the tracks.

30 6.3.8 MOU: Taking a More Holistic Approach to Crossing Safety CSX is working with some of the transportation agencies to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that will address crossings across a whole corridor. Instead of the current approach of doing grade crossing projects piecemeal, this will be a more holistic approach that includes improvements that can be made to an entire corridor. 6.3.9 Signal Improvements at Crossings Another Illinois DOT best practice on grade crossing safety is on signals at rail crossings. The agency allocates approximately $6 million of federal funds for signals and circuitry projects. This enables the agency and railroad to improve the safety of crossings. 6.3.10 Lump-Sum Payment An innovation that the Iowa DOT has successfully implemented is the use of lump-sum payments on resurfacing and rebuilding of grade crossing projects. The agency pays the railroad $400 per linear foot for materials used for reconstructing the grade crossing. The DOT reviews and updates the dollar amount (per linear foot) as necessary to reflect increases in material costs. This process eliminates much of the administrative overhead of such projects and also simplifies the audit process for the agency. 6.3.11 Consistency on Crossing and Safety Projects The Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT), Canada, is consistent in its approach to working with the railroads. It relies on standard agreements for crossings and safety improvement projects. The Canadian Transportation Agency has provided guidance on costs and rates for work performed by railway companies. MIT uses these guidelines when reviewing and approving invoices from the railroad. The consistency eliminates disagreement on payments. 6.4 Funding 6.4.1 Funding of Grade Crossing Resurfacing Illinois DOT has established an annual maintenance budget of about $1.5 million of state funds for state-maintained crossings. The agency’s Bureau of Local Roads and Streets uses federal safety funds for signalization, circuitry upgrades, and any other protective devices. Depending on the project, Illinois DOT currently splits 50 percent of the cost with the railroads; or the agency pays for materials and the railroad covers the cost of labor; or the DOT contributes a lump sum. The agency’s focus on crossing safety facilitates collaboration in other areas with the railroads. The Illinois Commerce Commission funds up to $2 million per year of crossing surface improvement on local roads only.

31 6.4.2 Revolving Rail Loan and Grant Program The Iowa DOT established this program that provides loans and grants for rail projects that spur economic development and job growth by connecting Iowa businesses to the rail network. In 2011, special appropriations allowed the program to assist in building rail infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the wind energy sector. These activities enhance the collaboration between the DOT and the railroads. 6.4.3 Process Improvements to Streamline Funding and Increase the Number of Safety Projects Delivered The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) has a process, in which federal Section 130 funds are distributed by formula to metropolitan and rural planning organizations (MPO and RPO). This has resulted in a rough average of 60 to 65 percent utilization rate of the 130 funds, while many projects wait for funding. Pennsylvania DOT is currently in the process of revising the approach to distribution of funds for federal Fiscal Year 2015 to get more projects completed and increase this utilization to above 90 percent. This will also address the challenges faced where there are projects in various MPOs and RPOs that are held up for lack of sufficient funds to complete larger projects. By moving such unused funds across these planning organizations, larger amounts can be made available to complete projects. This will facilitate the better utilization of funds and completion of more projects statewide. The agency is looking at strategies to review project needs on a statewide level and then providing funds to complete projects that will be on the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). These strategies are still in the review stages. This challenge faced by Pennsylvania DOT was discussed at one of the COI meetings. During the meeting, other members shared their experiences in addressing similar challenges. The COI member from Pennsylvania DOT, Mr. Gregory Vaughn, will use the feedback from members to enhance the Pennsylvania DOT’s internal discussion as they work to develop a strategy for the state. The current PennDOT process is also in use by several other DOTs. Successful implementation of the new strategy will serve as an example for these other DOTs facing similar challenges. 6.5 Improving Communication and Coordination Lack of communication and delays in coordination were issues that all COI members identified as among the big project challenges. Mr. David Wyatt, System Engineer of Public Improvements for Norfolk Southern, closed his update at the final COI meeting saying “One of the big areas of focus between transportation agencies and railroads can be addressed by the 3Cs: communication, communication and more communication.” Mr. Bellamy from CSX said, “There is never too much communication.” He shared examples at the COI meeting of how miscommunication and no communication led to project delays. Ms. Young from BNSF and Mr. Nizam from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) explained how the WSDOT used a dedicated railroad project manager

32 to ensure frequent and clear communication and timely coordination between BNSF and WSDOT. COI members used various strategies successfully to improve communication and coordination within their organizations and between the two organizations. Practices shared by members included the following: 6.5.1 Annual and Quarterly Meetings  Pennsylvania DOT championed annual meetings with the railroads. The DOT was cited in many discussions on project best practices as using the meetings for facilitating communication and collaboration between the two organizations. These meetings provided a forum for personnel from different areas of the DOTs to meet in person with personnel from each of the railroads and get to know them. The experience of the agency is that these meetings help the teams build the trust and relationships that make it easier to have quick phone discussions to ask and answer questions instead of engaging in multiple email exchanges that require lengthy explanations and longer response times. This best practice was echoed by COI members throughout the project kickoff meeting as being of the highest importance and necessary to the partnership and collaboration between the different project stakeholders.  BNSF conducts annual meetings with all its transportation agency partners. Ms. Young from BNSF notes that “these sessions provide an opportunity for face-to-face meetings. They help establish relationships that facilitate the open discussions that are precursors to finding ‘win-win’ solutions when issues arise.” With staff turnover, many transportation agencies have new staff in the rail division. To continue the collaboration and keep projects on track, the BNSF public project managers have quarterly meetings with state transportation agencies. In Missouri, BNSF meets quarterly with the district and division offices. These meetings help address a host of issues, including issues with projects that the DOT districts directly manage. These include inspections, maintenance activities, upcoming district projects, and trespassing issues. The DOT districts are responsible for the payment of projects, so these meetings also help the railroad understand the processes and discuss pending payment related issues. In New Mexico, Ms. Young often meets with division and district personnel, as well as with personnel involved with economic plan development. This allows the teams to discuss surface projects, capital plans, and the state’s own rail projects, as well as economic development projects.  The Florida DOT finds annual meetings with the railroads to be important to the continued success of partnership with the railroads. The Florida DOT annual meetings are often held in Jacksonville, Florida because both CSX and Florida East Coast Rail, the agency’s major railroad partners, are headquartered in Jacksonville. The DOT has seven districts, each with a railroad coordinator and a utility coordinator who attends the annual meetings. Also attending these meetings are the coordinators from the Florida Turnpike.

33 At these meetings, the group works on issues with agreements, flagging, crossing surfaces, and new installations of warning devices. The meetings also provide an opportunity for the groups to talk about state-of-the art practices and different technologies that are expected to be used in the future and on pilot projects. The annual meetings also have time set aside for discussing production schedules and ways to collaboratively improve the coordination process. The meetings also help the teams to proactively resolve issues face to face and streamline operations where necessary.  The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is a big champion of improved coordination and frequent communication with the railroads. The agency has many projects ongoing with CSX and NS. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the number of projects involving the railroads and the NCDOT has increased. The agency has over 52 different smaller projects totaling $540 million involving the railroads in various stages of planning, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, and construction. These include the installation of about 30 miles of second track and 12 grade separation projects. All of these are traditional projects requiring extensive coordination and collaboration between the DOT and the railroads. The majority of the 12 grade separation projects are with Norfolk Southern, a member of the community of interest. The DOT is targeting to complete work on all the ARRA projects by September 2016. This will give the agency time to complete all the necessary documentation by the contract close date of September 2017. The agency has developed a high degree of collaboration with the railroads that has greatly assisted it with addressing the increased workload caused by the recovery and reinvestment action projects. The agency finds the annual and periodic project meetings an excellent opportunity to talk about processes and projects and to resolve issues on an ongoing basis. The agency and their railroad partners view the meetings as very beneficial. These meetings have been forums for all parties to sit at the table and discuss issues and find solutions. These meetings have facilitated the partnership with the railroads that is enabling the agency to manage and deliver the large number of these complex ARRA projects as planned. This large number of projects scheduled for delivery in a short period of time is possible because of the use of many best practices and partnering between the railroads and the agency.  Michigan Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) meetings with the railroads historically did not cover all aspects of the agency’s business related to railroads. The DOT has reorganized the Office of Rail and streamlined many of the processes including those relating to interacting with the railroads. The meetings now cover the entire life cycle of projects involving rail. The meeting agenda covers topics that address more types of projects and all aspects of a project’s life cycle. These meetings include agency experts on regulations, crossing engineering, and economic development staff: and the railroads bring team members who can benefit from this meeting. In 2014, CSX brought the Roadmasters to the meeting. Discussing the 2014 meeting with Michigan DOT, Mr.

34 Bellamy from CSX said that “having the Roadmaster[s] at the meeting is helpful. since they understand frontline issues and can proactively address potential issues on upcoming projects.” Mr. Tim Hoeffner, director of the Office of Rail from Michigan DOT, notes that “As with so many items, communication is critical and just meeting, seeing and discussing with people face to face can fix so many things.” The agency expects this approach to improve the collaboration between all areas of rail operations within the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the railroads. Michigan DOT has also started an annual railroad conference with the railroad industry with help from the Michigan Technical Transportation Institute to further improve the discussion and communication with the railroads.  Having annual meetings is one of the best practices identified by the research project to address issues between the transportation agencies and railroads. CSX views annual meetings as a way to have open communications with the agencies. Mr. Bellamy from CSX notes that there have been several project delays due to miscommunication. He cited examples of successful annual meetings providing the forum for open dialogues with agencies. These helped clear misunderstandings and enabled both parties to move forward and expedite the project work. He also stated that the community of interest meetings have played an important role in facilitating dialogue between transportation agencies and railroads. In the last two years, CSX has met with over 90 percent of the agencies. In the last six months, CSX held meetings with Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Georgia, Ohio, and Alabama. CSX is also scheduled to have meetings in New York, Massachusetts, and Tennessee.  Norfolk Southern (NS) has been strongly encouraging its public projects managers to meet often with the DOTs. Mr. Wyatt from NS said that the “annual meetings really help eliminate some of the missteps and proactively address issues that arise from miscommunications.” He notes that with the staff turnover in both the DOT and NS, there are so many new personnel working on public projects that having these annual and other meetings provides an opportunity for everyone to meet each other and sit down and discuss projects and related topics that cause any sort of concerns to either party. During the period of this project, Union Pacific has conducted many annual meetings with transportation agencies that are not on the COI. These meetings proactively addressed routine grade crossing resurfacing projects and new construction and grade separation projects.  Genesee & Wyoming has a consulting company to assist the internal railroad personnel on public projects. The consultant and the railroad’s regional team are scheduled to meet with every transportation agency in 2014 and establish good channels of

35 communications. The intent is for the teams to meet frequently and establish the relationships necessary to work collaboratively with the agencies on projects.  Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation has early and frequent communications with the railroads. It also has annual meetings at the executive staff level about projects that are beneficial to the department and the railroads. The annual meeting provides another opportunity to ensure that communication channels are open at multiple levels of both organizations. The meetings build the relationships necessary to expedite issue resolution in the event that they have to be escalated higher up in both organizations. These meetings also facilitate the discussion and facilitate collaborative action to mitigate potential issues.  Discussing the high speed rail project in Chicago, Chris Keckeisen, Union Pacific Public Projects Manager, shared with the COI members that Union Pacific managers have been working closely with the Illinois DOT’s district personnel in Chicago. As part of the CREATE project, UP has implemented many agreements with the Illinois DOT and the city of Chicago. The project included adding a third mainline track on UP’s Geneva subdivision, upgrading 21 hand-thrown switches to computerized systems, eliminating six grade crossings, adding a tunnel for pedestrians, and making viaduct improvements. Coordination, communication and effective project management has been a high priority for the DOT, the city, and UP for delivery of these projects.  Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation has a particularly good working relationship with Canadian Pacific (CP). The two organizations meet often and have early planning sessions to share information and make sure that both teams get familiar with the upcoming projects and schedules. Addressing the COI discussion on staff turnover posing challenges to both the agencies and the railroads, Ms. Emerson explained that there has been “some turnover of Canadian National staff, and the DOT is now in the process of streamlining some of the processes and working out some coordination issues resulting from the staff changes.” COI members agreed that they experienced similar challenges and noted that this highlights the importance of constant coordination and the need for knowledge transfer within and between the two organizations. 6.5.2 BNSF and WSDOT 2013 Joint Session on Early Railroad Coordination BNSF and WSDOT collaborated in a joint session at the agency’s annual project engineers meeting and discussed the need and benefits of early coordination from design through construction. The session was an excellent opportunity to further showcase the importance of early coordination by the WSDOT project offices. It also addressed the major challenge of delays within the agency and with the railroads in the design and construction phases of the project. The discussion was very well received by meeting attendees and the intent is to conduct similar discussions joint sessions involving BNSF and WSDOT every two years at the annual project engineers meetings.

36 6.5.3 Improving Coordination Improving coordination is a high priority for CSX. The railroad has been working on improving coordination and communication within the CSX team and with the transportation agencies. Mr. Bellamy from CSX shared examples of challenges faced and successes achieved through improving coordination. The railroad attributes good coordination with Florida, Tennessee and West Virginia Departments of Transportation (DOTs) to the successful and timely completion of projects. On the flip side, Mr. Bellamy also noted that there have been challenges faced and design revisions necessitated by lack of coordination between the railroad and some agencies. 6.5.4 Railroad Coordination on Major Highway Projects Projects involving widening of various high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane projects in the state of Washington have significant impact on the railroads. The agency personnel have been working with BNSF, UP, and several short line railroads to ensure that early coordination and frequent communications occur. This has resulted in proactive and successful mitigation of issues. 6.5.5 ARRA Funded High Speed Rail Program WSDOT is working with BNSF and several other railroads to make sure that there is appropriate coordination on infrastructure agreements, operating agreements, and other agreements on the projects to improve passenger rail operations from Eugene, Oregon, to Vancouver, British Columbia. Three hundred miles of this 467-mile corridor run through the state of Washington. The project will improve the rail infrastructure and support the trains that are expected to have a top speed of 79 miles per hour. Amtrak will be sharing the track with freight trains. 6.5.6 Collaboration to Improve Coordination and Maximize Resource Utilization Another practice that railroads including CSX have successfully implemented on some projects is collaborating across railroads to improve coordination and minimize costs. The practice involves two railroads collaborating on segments of track that are close to each other on projects involving the same DOT. In this scenario, if a consultant has been hired by one of the railroads and if the other railroad is comfortable with the qualification of the selected firm, they will select the same firm to work on their segment. CSX and NS collaborated on such practices. This helps streamline the coordination and minimize miscommunication and duplication of efforts reducing time and cost on both projects. 6.5.7 Trust and Personal Relationships Mr. Wyatt from NS also notes that meetings between both teams help to build personal relationships that are so important to the entire process. The relationships built as well the trust that comes with them are critical to the entire process. Having a good working relationship makes it easier to have open conversations, raise issues constructively, and find solutions

37 collaboratively. The current NS team has successfully established good relationships with all the transportation agencies in the COI where it operates. 6.5.8 Communication and Coordination A big supporter of partnering with the railroads, the Iowa DOT holds various meetings with the railroads annually. Many of the best practices at the DOT involve Union Pacific. The agency also has implemented several best practices with BNSF, Canadian National (CN), and several short line railroads. The DOT meetings address the following:  Pre-let meetings. Before the project letting and during the project development phase the agency has a public involvement meeting, where the design alternatives are discussed with the area businesses, schools, emergency personnel, and residents of the community. Invitation is extended to the railroads. These meetings allow the railroad also to understand the impact of projects to their business.  Preconstruction meetings. These meetings are held two or three weeks before start of project work. The preconstruction meeting is important to ensure effective coordination and communication between the DOT construction office, the DOT contractor and any subcontractors on that particular project. The meeting invitation is extended to local jurisdictions, the railroads, and the utilities that can be affected by the project. The updates help extend the partnership and collaboration between the DOT and railroads to other stakeholders.  Winter Meetings. The Iowa DOT winter meetings are held at the conclusion of each construction season. These meetings involve all levels of management, and the discussions include an overview of surface repair projects, signals projects, insurance and billing issues, future rail projects, and completed work done by the railroad. The meetings provide an opportunity to share information with individuals from both organizations who may not be directly involved with every stage of a project. The discussions and ideas exchanged during these meetings reinforce the importance of the roles, goals, and expectations of all the stakeholders.  Monthly Coordination and Communications Meetings. The Iowa DOT continues to hold monthly or bimonthly meetings on construction projects with the railroads. They also discuss the crossing projects, the Section 130 projects, and the status of active projects. These meetings are held with each railroad separately. The agenda covers the highway construction projects, primary crossing rebuilds, the crossing surface projects (cities and counties), the safety projects, and any billing, documentation, and inspections that are pending. To address questions from the railroads pertaining to the Iowa DOT master agreement templates (developmental specifications), the DOT will have personnel from the specification office. These experts also are a good point of contact for subsequent follow-up with the railroad on all aspects of the specifications. There will also be a representative from the DOT’s local systems office to follow up on any questions

38 about the status of the guidance provided by the agency to cities and counties through the DOT’s instructional memorandum. 6.6 Streamlining COI members from DOTs noted that often there are internal coordination challenges. With most DOTs operating in a decentralized setup with the central offices and dispersed regional or district offices, communication between the DOT and the railroad can get frayed and confusing. Both railroads and DOTs have developed various mechanisms to address these internal staffing and coordination needs. Some of these mechanisms are as follows. 6.6.1 Single Points of First Contact in both the DOT and the Railroad One of the practices that worked well for MIT is having a single point of first contact between the DOT and the railroads. Ms. Emerson served for several years as the liaison for MIT; however, in December of 2013 the agency staffed a new position for the railway crossing safety technologist, who now serves in that role and reports to Ms. Emerson. The MIT’s experience is that having a single first point of contact between the agency and each of the railroads makes the communication consistent and coordination more efficient. This facilitates keeping projects on track while optimizing utilization of resources. 6.6.2 BNSF Single Point of Contact BNSF has a public project manager who serves as the first point of contact with the transportation agencies. With third parties providing services for public projects, this single point of contact helps streamline the communication between the two organizations and minimizes the cross communication that takes place when more than one person acts as the liaison. 6.6.3 Outsourcing to Expedite the Agreement Processing Addressing improvements to streamline the processing of agreements, Mr. Wyatt said that NS has done some internal streamlining by outsourcing the processing of public project agreements. This has led to a smoother process and achieved the goal of timely handling of agreements and expedited the overall agreement processing for the states. The COI members from state transportation agencies that work with NS concurred with Mr. Wyatt that agreement processing on public projects involving NS is streamlined. 6.6.4 Central Point of Coordination Emphasizing the importance of effective and timely coordination the Florida DOT uses multiple strategies to ensure that effective communication takes place with the railroads. The Florida DOT also tries to ensure that effective internal coordination takes place. Florida DOT has an office of railroads and most of the activities relating to rail are managed through this office. Having such an office makes it easier for Florida DOT to work on streamlining both internal agency processes and as well as those between the DOT and the railroad.

39 6.6.5 Locally Based Public Managers RailAmerica, now a part of G&W, had a model of managing public projects where the activities were managed by the central office in Jacksonville. The railroad has streamlined the process by which the management in G&W will move to a hybrid process, where regional offices will collaborate with the G&W consultants to coordinate regional project work. The change will bring a regionally based process with a local public projects management team for each of the Genesee & Wyoming regions. This will also mean more locally based project managers that should also result in saving expenses for the agencies. Mr. Larry Romaine of Genesee & Wyoming said that having the local management will mean less need to fly someone from Jacksonville for an hour and half meeting. Also the proximity and opportunity for frequent contact will help foster improved communications and better relationships with the regions, the railroads, and all the agencies. Mr. Romaine said that Genesee & Wyoming thinks that improved relationships and communication is very important and has been a major part of the selection of the new G&W consultant. This change is expected to result in faster responses to reviews and project activities for transportation agency projects. 6.6.6 Reorganization and One-Stop Office The Michigan DOT downsized in the late 2000s. This led to the consolidation of all agency rail activities into the Office of Rail. The office manages 665 miles of rail track. CSX, Norfolk Southern Railway, and Canadian National are among the 24 railroads that operate in the state. The agency has been streamlining both internal and external processes on projects involving the railroads. The reorganization includes bringing all railroad regulatory work for grade crossings, close clearances, railroad employee welfare, and all aspects of passenger rail operations and freight operations under one office. The agency’s goal is to create this one-stop shopping with a rail office that can comprehensively address all aspects related to railroad activities. 6.6.7 Plan and Design Reviews BNSF and the DOT’s collaborate on larger scale projects to allow third-party consultants to provide design review on plan submittals. This helps expedites the process. BNSF finds that with additional organizations involved in the process, closer coordination and frequent communication between BNSF and the DOT is even more important. 6.6.8 Contractor Agreements and Insurance Tracking BNSF has ongoing discussions with agencies on process improvements relating to contractor agreements and insurance tracking of contractors. Some state agencies are addressing these provisions in the bid documents to ensure that the contractors have the necessary insurance before starting work on projects. States are also addressing these either in the construction and maintenance agreements or through the contractor agreement. Most state agencies, including several on the COI, put the BNSF contractor requirements and agreement documents in their special provisions or bid applications to the contractor interested in working on projects

40 involving BNSF. This ensures that the insurance requirements are known before the contractor bids on the job. Also the insurance tracking is now all-electronic and the contractor receives emails on status updates and tracking. 6.6.9 BNSF Escalation Process BNSF successfully streamlined workflow processing with WSDOT and also implemented a formal escalation process. This resulted in over 98 percent of issues getting resolved in normal project meetings without getting escalated. The railroad is looking to implement similar streamlined process with other agencies. 6.6.10 MOU Between Colorado DOT and BNSF The MOU between Colorado DOT and BNSF cited earlier addresses streamlining and partnering on projects involving the two parties. This MOU has the same intent as the Presidential MOU on NEPA. The MOU will address delays on projects. It covers a list of streamlined processes and a process for continuous improvement between BNSF and CDOT. With over 10 major agreements being processed by CDOT each year and several months shaved from each agreement being processed, the total savings by the successful implementation of the MOU could be significant. 6.6.11 Streamlining to Improve Coordination The NCDOT has done some internal staff realignment to ensure better coordination between various personnel in the rail division and the DOT’s highway engineers who work on signals and crossings. This closer coordination improves the communication between the appropriate agency personnel early in the project development process resulting in expediting the projects, better utilization of resources, and time savings. 6.6.12 Unifying Standards and Procedures The Genesee & Wyoming’s System Engineering Group has been charged with unifying standards and procedures across the 111 railroads that Genesee & Wyoming operates. This effort is expected to streamline the project coordination between the railroad and the DOTs. It will result in unified standards and processes for warning devices and track components. Mr. Romaine noted that in the past all of these have been handled differently by the different properties. The unified standards will be helpful to the transportation agencies. 6.6.13 Bridge Inspection Process Improvements Pennsylvania has 1,241 bridges on both the state and local roadways that go over railroads. These bridges are inspected every two years, as per federal regulations. Besides working to develop master agreements to address bridge inspections, the agency is working on a process to streamline and ease the process of inspection of bridges over railroads. This will create a common understanding and create consistency across the department and among consultants who work on bridge inspections. It will detail the steps in the preparation phase to expedite the

41 process as well as steps to take during the inspection to ensure safety of personnel and property around the inspection site. 6.6.14 Managing Costs BNSF has been working on ways to streamline processes and eliminate duplication. For example, the Kansas Army Corps of Engineers is working on a grade separation project involving the city and BNSF. This is a $100 million, five-year project. BNSF retained the engineer of record used by the Corps to ensure consistency and continuity. This also avoided the duplication of review and the additional time and associated cost for a new consultant to get up to speed on the project. 6.7 Expediting Agreement Processing One of the major areas of concern for agencies was delays in agreement processing. Over the last few years many process improvements have been made by COI members to expedite agreement processing. Examples of process improvements include the following. 6.7.1 Agreement Process Improvements BNSF, in working with WSDOT, streamlined the process of completing agreements to take less than 31weeks from start of agreement processing to signoff of agreement. With BNSF divisional personnel focusing on mainline BNSF projects, the railroad outsourced the agreement processing of public projects to a third party to ensure that the necessary attention could be given to the review of agency agreements. The public projects division is focusing on increased cooperation and collaboration between the BNSF public projects manager and the DOT rail sections to address agreement language conflicts in a timely manner. BNSF finds that together these strategies have successfully expedited the approval of agreements. BNSF has included this as one practice to be addressed in its memorandum of understanding with the Colorado Department of Transportation (DOT). 6.7.2 Electronic Agreement Processing Iowa DOT has deployed an electronic workflow to expedite the agreement processing of grade crossing projects. This process has been accepted by the railroads. This process uses electronic signatures and a streamlined workflow to expedite the workflow processes from selection of projects to approval of agreements. It allows tracking of all the agreements and produces reminders of impending milestones. It helps with cross-training, automates administrative work, is transparent to the participants, and provides searchable electronic records. The COI members identified the resulting process as one that could improve coordination and communication between railroads and project sponsors. The benefits include

42  The system is web-based, so there is no installation of software on users’ computers. The process will involve the railroad and local agencies receiving an electronic username and identification that will be required to sign into the system.  The tracking capability is extremely useful and easy.  Using the system provides transparency.  The system ensures that there is only one official document (versus multiple copies of documents). This final approved document will be filed in the Iowa DOT’s electronic document management system.  The system simplifies training. 6.8 Shared Benefits Some of the DOTs and railroads are collaborating on projects for shared benefits. This has now become common practice in agencies that also manage rail operations. Such collaborations benefit the taxpayers and the both parties. Some examples of such practices include the following. 6.8.1 Continued Partnership and Shared Benefits Florida DOT has developed a culture of collaboration with its railroads that is assisted by its shared investment in freight rail lines. In a discussion on the project, Mr. Ananth Prasad, Florida DOT secretary, said, “Where there is a measureable public benefit, the agency has shared in investing to improve freight lines. This is more so where it relieves congestion or creates other public benefits.” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and other legislators participated in an announcement in South Florida where FDOT will connect the South Florida Rail corridor, owned by the state, with Florida East Coast Railway, which operates to the East of the South Florida Rail corridor. Secretary Prasad said, “With this initiative, FDOT will have freight passenger operations on both corridors. The project is unique in that Florida East Coast contributed financially to the project, and CSX and the South Florida regional transportation authority contributed along with Florida DOT and US DOT.” Florida DOT is collaborating with the local and federal agencies on the SunRail project that has purchased 61 miles of CSX track in the Orlando area to operate passenger services. CSX retains a perpetual freight easement in that corridor to continue to serve its customers. Phase 1 involves working on double-tracking the first 30 miles, which will include 18 new stations and which is scheduled to open for commuter operations in the summer of the 2014. The continued partnership between FDOT and CSX is important to servicing clients of both organizations. Additional parallel improvements to the west of Orlando are also in process. This improvement will add capacity enhancements enabling CSX to divert freight trains to the corridor, thereby reducing Orlando area congestion.

43 6.8.2 Coordination on BNSF Expansion and Improvement Projects BNSF is making investments in several states. For example, in the state of Washington, BNSF projects include improvements to double-track trains. This sometimes requires addressing crash walls and other agency structures. BNSF has been working closely on such projects with the DOTs. WSDOT’s coordination with BNSF ensures that these railroad projects do not have any negative impact on DOT bridges and other infrastructure. 6.8.3 North Carolina DOT Piedmont Improvement Program This project in North Carolina involves the DOT investing about $520 million of ARRA monies to improve rail infrastructure connecting economic regions of Raleigh and Charlotte and surrounding communities. The North Carolina Railroad Company is contributing some funds, and CSX and NS are doing much of the track work. All three railroad companies and the state will benefit from the project. Mr. Worley from NCDOT said, “Improving the tracks will improve safety, improve movement of goods to and from our communities, provide better connectivity for our citizens, and ensure more opportunities for our business partners.” 6.9 Collaborating to Reach Out to Local Agencies Railroads and DOTs on the COI are also beginning to collaborate and champion the use of best practices in local agencies. Following are some of the examples of best practices. 6.9.1 BNSF and WSDOT Collaborating to Assist Local Agencies Mr. Nizam from WSDOT notes that, “In the past, DOTs have been more inward focused, making internal process improvements that address the state level needs. Now WSDOT is going beyond agency boundaries to help local agency partners improve coordination on projects with the railroads.” The WSDOT in collaboration with BNSF has been sharing best practices and lessons learned with local agencies. For example, a Washington county project with BNSF was getting delayed because of easement issues, and the county was at risk of losing its federal funding. At BNSF’s request, WSDOT shared the agency practices and assisted the county to get the necessary certification. This allowed the county to successfully retain the funding and proceed with the project. 6.9.2 Instructional Memorandum to Expedite Local Agency Projects An initiative between the Iowa DOT and the local agencies involves partnering to communicate and extend the use of best practices at the local level. The agency has an office that communicates best practices that are used on the primary system to the local agencies. As part of the initiative, the agency has created and shared with the local agencies an instructional memorandum that communicates the details of the developmental specification agreement that has been successfully implemented between the DOT and Union Pacific. The memorandum

44 provides direction on the steps to be followed when the local agencies use the DOT’s letting process for local projects. This expedites the activities between the local agency and the railroad. 6.10 Information Access and Data Management With the increased focus on data-driven decision making and demands to improve performance, the need for quality data has become more important. Public agencies and railroads are also under increased scrutiny from the public and shareholders for transparency. With the current focus on safety, the need for quality data has increased several-fold. DOTs are implementing various strategies to track, improve, and share information about their performance. Some of the strategies are as follows. 6.10.1 Improving Inventory Data The Utilities and Transportation Commission in Washington regulates railroads, including railroad grade crossing safety. The WSDOT is working with the commission to get accurate information on inventories to improve the quality of the data provided to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). The end result will be that the DOT and FRA will have better information on the highway inventories related to railroad and highway projects in the state of Washington. With many projects demanding funding this will also help improve decision making and assist with where to best invest limited resources to effectively manage various risks. 6.10.2 Electronic Data Management Systems Addressing the challenge of having inconsistency in data from multiple sources, the Pennsylvania DOT developed a one-stop source for grade crossing data. The agency implemented a document management system that houses all grade crossing data. The DOT tracks the entire grade crossing inventory in this system and uses it to track the project status and the schedule of both safety and highway bridge projects. The system also is a repository for project documentation and includes the notice-to-proceed, copies of agreements, job correspondence, and public utility commission documents. It is a repository of scanned documents on other aspects of projects, serving also as an interface to other management systems. The sharing of this practice at the community of interest meeting led to a lot of discussion among members. Several agreed that it was good practice but noted that resource limitations could be a barrier to the widespread adoption of this practice by agencies. 6.10.3 Rail Crossing Inventory on the Web Platform Florida DOT has updated its rail crossing inventory and moved onto a web platform linked to Google Maps. This allows anyone, including the state's 14 railroads, to use it. The inventory includes train and traffic counts and accident histories. The state uses the inventory to prioritize crossings for improvement and funding, as well as for updating the Federal Railroad Administration inventory. The tool is particularly useful for the small railroads that cannot afford to maintain an updated current inventory. The agency has received a lot of positive feedback

45 regarding access to the inventory. It has also helped to expedite safety improvement projects with the railroads. 6.10.4 Web-Repository of Resources Ms. Young from BNSF emphasized the need and importance of a single web-based repository of best practices at the project kickoff meeting in Kansas. Other COI members commended the suggestion and agreed that it would expose transportation agencies and railroads to best practices and agreements successfully implemented in other states and give them access to tested solutions that they could customize to suit their needs. BNSF has since then contributed many examples of agreements and best practices for inclusion in the Collaborative Solution Suite’s virtual library that will be available to users in late summer of 2014. 6.11 Master Agreements The DOT and railroad members have made great progress with developing master agreements. Since the Class I railroads on the COI cover many states, they have pursued several efforts to implement master agreements in other states and have made great progress. Following are some of the efforts. 6.11.1 CSX and Illinois DOT Use of Master Resurfacing Template Illinois DOT and various railroads have been working on addressing the safety of crossings, using a master resurfacing agreement. The agency has a master agreement for resurfacing with CSX and uses standard templates with other railroads for surface crossing projects (with project- specific information). This expedites the time for agreement review and processing. A slightly modified version is being used for installation of signals at crossings. 6.11.2 CSX and FDOT Flagging Agreement and Process Improvements Besides streamlining the monitoring of flagging needs discussed earlier in the report, CSX and Florida DOT have implemented a flagging agreement to expedite the processing of flagging agreements that help avoid costly project delays. The flagging agreement has effectively been in use for at least ten years. The benefits from the flagging agreement and project management practices include reduction in delays by 6 to 8 months and cost savings of approximately $200,000 per new project. Another example is of Pennsylvania DOT working with CSX to implement a similar flagging agreement. The agency and CSX were working at addressing the issues relating to the multiple railroad unions in the state of Pennsylvania, with the objective of developing and signing a master flagging agreement for all capital improvement projects. With the capital projects completed, the discussions have been pared down to obtaining a signed master flagging agreement to expedite and standardize the steps required for doing bridge inspection work.

46 The flagging master agreement and streamlined process of tracking the flagging needs as implemented by CSX and Florida is also being considered by NS for implementation in other states. 6.11.3 Texas DOT and UP Streamlining Review and Approval of Flagging UP and Texas DOT are also working on a flagging master agreement for bridge inspections and routine maintenance work. With over 50,000 bridges in Texas, the DOT invests a lot of resources and time to complete the 2-year federally mandated inspection of all bridges. With over 10,300 rail mile routes and many bridges going over rail tracks, having a master flagging agreement will expedite the reviews. It will eliminate the need for review and approval of long agreements, resulting in significant time and resource saving that can be directed to other projects. This agreement will also streamline the review and approval of agreements for such projects by delegating the approval from the central Omaha office to the regional UP offices. This frees up the resources tied down in these reviews and also frees up the Omaha resources to work on other agreements that require their review and approval. The master agreement will further streamline the process and further expedite the regional review and approval. 6.11.4 Texas DOT Master Agreement and Streamlined Selection of Safety Projects Texas DOT has developed master agreements for the federal signal projects using Section 130 funds. With over 9,000 crossings, the master agreement will streamline processes and result in significant saving by limiting the review to a few pages of project specifics for all parties. Texas DOT also streamlined the selection of the Section 130 program of projects and has developed a new prioritization process for these projects. 6.11.5 Texas DOT Master Agreement for State-Funded Resurfacing of Crossings The Texas DOT is in the process of developing a master agreement with UP for resurfacing or planking of state-funded crossing projects. 6.11.6 Iowa DOT and UP Master Developmental Specifications for New Projects Iowa DOT and Union Pacific signed a development agreement for development and maintenance of new projects in 2012. Though the development of this first master agreement took several years, it now takes half the time to get project agreements approved. Texas DOT has reviewed this agreement and would like to adopt a similar agreement with Union Pacific. The agency and the railroads have developed basic language for aspects common to all construction projects. Project-specific details are added to this standard specifications agreement as exhibits. The outcome of having this agreement is that the railroads have to only review and approve the exhibits. This shortens the review time for the railroad and the DOT legal teams. The agency has implemented this agreement with Union Pacific. Now the use of this specification is common practice for all Iowa DOT highway projects with Union Pacific. Both sides now focus on the

47 engineering review of the plan set. This shortened review of the non-engineering aspects of the agreement expedites the overall agreement execution. Ms. Hobbs noted that it is by far the most efficient highway-railroad agreement for the DOT. Tamara Nicholson, director of the Office of Rail Transportation, notes that “though getting the final Master Developmental Specification approved and signed with Union Pacific Railway was time-consuming, both the agency and the railroad have benefitted tremendously. With the signed agreement in place, new project agreements take few weeks for review and approval. This is a big saving in time as well as resource utilization for both organizations.” Iowa DOT has also been working to implement similar developmental specification agreements with BNSF and Canadian National (CN) railroads. CN and the DOT had exchanged red-lined versions of the draft agreement. The two parties have also had several conference calls and in-person meetings. The discussions over several months have included the Iowa Attorney General’s office, the CN legal staff, and the CN government affairs person. Ms. Hobbs explained to members of the community of interest at the December 2013 meeting that the DOT now has a final developmental specification that was approved by CN. The two parties have already tested the new Master Developmental Specification on several new projects and plan to use it on all projects in the future. The agency is in the process of incorporating the developmental specification with CN into the DOT’s standard specifications for highway and bridge construction. BNSF and the Iowa DOT continue to review and edit their developmental specification document and expect to have it signed in 2014. 6.11.7 Iowa DOT and UP Expediting Minor Maintenance Projects The success achieved on major construction projects between Iowa DOT and UP has translated into expanded partnering between the two parties. The working relationship has carried over to other projects, resulting in expedited processing of agreements on minor projects. For example, the Iowa DOT and UP have a process where they use a single-page letter agreement on minor scale projects for maintenance-type activity with no easement or real estate transaction. 6.11.8 Texas DOT and UP Reverse Agreements Another type of unique agreement that is being developed between the Texas DOT and Union Pacific is the reverse master agreement. Texas is encountering a lot of energy-sector-type projects, and the reverse agreements streamline processes related to such projects. Examples of such projects involving Union Pacific are double tracks on the mainline across the state. Other new industry projects cross the state highways. The current process requires that for each railroad-initiated project, each time the railroad has to reimburse the state for preliminary engineering reviews, construction engineering reviews, providing traffic control, or other activities along those lines, Texas DOT has to go to the transportation commission and get their approval or a minute order. This process is time-consuming, and the process takes about a month to get the approvals and agreements before the railroads can reimburse the DOT. A reverse

48 master agreement should expedite the process and eliminate the need to seek approvals for processing agreements from the commission. 6.11.9 NS and NCDOT Master Construction and Maintenance Agreement The North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) has developed several master agreements for streamlining and expediting agreements with the railroads. NCDOT and Norfolk Southern signed a master construction and maintenance agreement. The two organizations have used this agreement since 2012 on over 50 projects to expedite project delivery under ARRA. The agreement will expedite the review and signing of agreements relating to the construction of projects between the two parties and will enable the on-time delivery of the ARRA projects to meet the 2016 construction deadline set by NCDOT. 6.11.10 CSX Master Agreement In 2012, CSX completed a master agreement with Kentucky Department of Transportation (DOT) that addresses new construction projects and their maintenance. CSX is in the process of updating the right-of-entry agreement to include bridge inspections with the West Virginia Department of Transportation (DOT). It also has a master agreement that covers signals with West Virginia DOT. The railroad is in the process of drafting an all-inclusive master agreement with Indiana Department of Transportation (DOT) and on a master agreement with Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT). CSX also has various agreements with Tennessee Department of Transportation (DOT). The railroad is working with various other states on creating standard or master agreements. 6.11.11 NS Master Agreement with Georgia DOT NS has completed work on an agreement template that addresses a range of project types with Georgia DOT. This master agreement template is a long-term agreement that will have a 10-year life and, once signed, should be very helpful in streamlining and expediting agreements. It is an all-inclusive agreement that addresses all types of projects other than lights and gates. NS is also in the process of reviewing the final draft of the master agreement with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Attorneys from both organizations are in the process of final review of the language and provisions in the agreement and they expect to have this completed before the summer of 2014. 6.11.12 BNSF Master Agreements BNSF has master agreements for signal, grade crossing resurfacing, and roadway projects that include widening of existing roads and improvements at intersections and grade separation projects with several states including Washington, Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, Missouri, Colorado, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. BNSF appreciates the importance of the master agreements in eliminating unnecessary administrative costs related to the reviews and intends to continue

49 pursuing the use master agreements to streamline and expedite the agreement processing with other states. 6.11.13 CSX and NCDOT Master Right-of-Entry Agreement The North Carolina DOT and CSX signed a master right-of-entry agreement in 2012. The agreement addresses provisions that expedite the responses from the railroad, and allows entry of agency personnel on to the railroad property for work detailed in the agreement within ten days of the agency’s request for entry. These agreements have been very successful and have been a big factor in the agency’s ability to keep the projects on schedule. This expedites the processing of agreements from months to a 10-day notice before entry. The agency is working on a similar agreement with NS. Pennsylvania DOT has also been working with CSX and NS to develop a master right-of- entry agreement to address bridge inspections. The agreement with CSX is currently being reviewed by the DOT’s chief legal counsel’s office, after which it will go to CSX for comments. 6.11.14 NCDOT and CSX Master Agreement for Closures The North Carolina DOT developed and signed a master agreement for grade crossing closures with CSX in early 2013. This agreement addresses one of the railroad’s major concerns about grade crossings and their focus on closing at-grade crossing. Grade crossing closure projects improve the collaboration between agencies and railroads. The agreement expedites the agreement processing and limits the review to few pages of project-specific information. It optimizes and directs the use of resources to the completion of projects. CSX has worked closely with several transportation agencies to close crossings that were not needed. CSX also has such an agreement with Florida DOT. CSX and the two agencies have successfully managed to reduce incidents at at-grade crossings. Using the agreement with CSX as a baseline, NCDOT was able to expedite the development and signing of a grade closing agreement with Norfolk Southern. This agreement between NS and NCDOT was signed in late 2013. 6.11.15 NS Signal Master Agreements Norfolk Southern has signal master agreements with several states. These include Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Florida. 6.11.16 Other UP Master Agreements UP is also working on master agreements with the Arizona Department of Transportation (DOT), the California Department of Transportation (DOT), the Oregon Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Texas Department of Transportation (DOT).

50 6.12 Design-Build Projects Most transportation agencies have either already embraced or are in the process of embracing design-build projects. Often these projects are large projects requiring a higher level of coordination than what is normally required on traditional projects. Following are some of the successful practices relating to design-build projects: 6.12.1 Risk Acceptance and Tolerance on Design-Build WSDOT Approach One of the strategies to expedite design-build projects is to plan the design of the entire highway structure to be built in an approved or already acquired right-of-way before contract letting. This approach is used on projects where the DOT has a high level of confidence on the acceptance of the design by the railroad and hence is willing to take some risk. In this alternate approach, the agency accepts some level of risk and incorporates special language into the construction and maintenance contract to indicate that it may be necessary for the railroad to review plans in stages. The risk here is that one design element may be reviewed and approved and the next element may not be. To date, this approach to staged plan reviews by the railroad has worked because the agency is selective in implementing the approach to projects where the confidence is high and the projected risk is low. 6.12.2 NCDOT Design-Build Projects The NCDOT has been involved in design-build (D-B) projects for several years now. D-B projects that also involve the railroads pose some additional and different challenges. The agency has streamlined coordination on projects involving the railroads to proactively minimize challenges related to project cost, schedule and scope. D-B projects have no early plans for project development, so getting the railroads involved very early in the process is very important. There are discussions in the agency to bring the railroads in as early as during the public hearing map stage. The agency is working on having conference calls and discussions with the railroads before the project information goes out for reviews. The agency’s rail division is also collaborating with the design section of the DOT to become more involved in projects involving railroads. The agency is continuing to enhance the process of engaging the railroads based on the past D-B project experience. NS is slowly adopting the experience on design-build projects with NCDOT on similar projects with other DOTs. 6.12.3 Texas DOT Design-Build Projects In Texas DOT, the design-build contractors hired for these projects have some unique challenges in working with the railroads. The railroads are risk-averse and want 100 percent plans before they give approval for any work on the railroad right-of-way. Since that is not possible in such projects, the Texas DOT has developed various tools to address these challenges and to reduce risk to the design-build contractors while also making the railroads more comfortable with the construction of the projects. Many of these include applying the project innovations addressed by this project.

51 The coordination of design-build highway projects with railroad companies includes developing and obtaining railroad approval of critical design elements before bidding the project. This typically involves approval of 30 percent design schematics (plans) of the portion of the project affecting or impacting existing and future rail facilities located within railroad right-of- way. This practice ensures early involvement and buy-in on the project from the railroad, and reduces risk to the design-build contractor. Reduced risk results in lower overall project cost. 6.12.4 NS Design-Build Projects NS has design-build projects ongoing in Ohio, North Carolina and Georgia. Mr. David Wyatt of Norfolk Southern Railway emphasized that “the key to design-build is to involve the railroads early. This means involving the railroads when the agencies start thinking about having a project.” He emphasized the importance and urged members to get the railroads involved as early as possible. Mr. Wyatt said this early involvement will help both parties avoid some of the missteps that can delay the projects. Mr. Wyatt also noted that it is also likely that the railroads may have some suggestions on a design solution that may address potential issues and be acceptable to the DOT. Early communication may bring such options to the discussion early in the process to serve as a good solution that will expedite the project. 6.13 Training and Knowledge Transfer With railroads and agencies downsizing over the last several years, the loss of institutional knowledge has become a challenge. Additionally, knowledge has also been lost due to retirements and attrition. As agencies hire new personnel, the need for training is becoming increasingly important. DOTs and railroads are aware of this need, and several are ensuring that the training also addresses projects involving road and rail. Following are some of the efforts: 6.13.1 Manuals, Training, and Knowledge Transfer With the high staff turnover, Pennsylvania DOT is training approximately 150 personnel on various aspects of project management. Among other aspects of project management, the training also addresses early coordination with the railroads on projects involving them. Gregory Vaughn, a grade crossing engineer for the Pennsylvania DOT and a project stakeholder, notes, “Pennsylvania DOT addresses the need for early coordination in its courses for project managers and also emphasizes the importance of early and ongoing coordination with the railroads at each grade crossing meeting.” 6.13.2 New Hires and Knowledge Transfer Texas DOT has hired several new personnel in the rail division. Mr. Darrin Kosmak has these new personnel reviewing the training, a component of the Collaborative Solutions Suite that addresses many of the best practices being disseminated by this project. The suite of tools also includes a virtual library that houses examples of agreements, best practices by peers, and other

52 resources to assist stakeholders working on projects involving transportation agencies and railroads. This will reap two-fold benefits for the DOT. The DOT expects these personnel to use the examples from the project’s virtual library to refine and update the agency’s agreements. This, while providing training and facilitating knowledge transfer to new staff, will also ensure that they take ownership of the new agreements. 6.13.3 Project Development Guide The Texas DOT has published a railroad project development guide. The guide is a portion of the railroad operations manual that is distributed to all the Texas DOT district railroad coordinators for reference and use. The coordinator also shares the document with district project managers, designers, structural engineers, and consultants. This guide details the roles and responsibilities of the agency personnel, railroads, and the consultants in developing all different types of projects that involve the DOT and railroads. It provides information on the different types of agreements and documents that are required before starting work and after completion of project. 6.13.4 NS Public Projects Manual NS has published a comprehensive public projects manual. Using this manual will help states, counties and local agencies streamline and expedite working on projects with NS. The manual details the step-by-step processing of various aspects of projects. It includes the design criteria for projects and is a soup-to-nuts manual that will be very helpful to transportation agencies. This manual has been included in the Collaborative Solution Suite’s virtual library and should be accessible nationally by late summer or early fall of 2014. 6.13.5 BNSF and Union Pacific Design Standards BNSF and UP have together published common design standards that will help agencies and consultants working on projects with the two railroads. By documenting the guidelines, the railroads make it convenient for contractors on both sides (DOT and railroads) to develop plans and designs to standards. It eliminates the need for revisions to plans and designs. The intent is that the common design standards will provide consistency across larger numbers of projects and make it easier for consultants working on projects with either railroad. Several other DOTs have also published guidance documents to assist personnel from the agency, the railroads, and contractors to have a better understanding and consistent approach to projects involving road and rail.