Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

1. Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies A SHRP 2 Research project SENIOR Program Officer Dr. Monica Starnes Presented By Shobna Varma For StarIsis Corporation Gordon Proctor & Associates

2. Project Objectives Identify strategies, relationships to benefit DOTs, RRs Seek partnering techniques Develop model agreements Identify and overcome barriers SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

3. The Problem • Negotiations are complex • Railroads are busy • Reviews can be slow • Solutions can be expensive • Negotiations can be contentious SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

4. The Research Process • Advisory panel of states, RRs, federal officials; • Interviewed all Class I RRs; • Surveyed all states • Interviewed 10 states • Interviewed engineering firms • Reviewed manuals, agreements, standards SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

5. Railroad Perspective • Are private companies, obligated to shareholders • Highway projects do not benefit them • Are in expansion mode, must preserve rights of way • Accidents are catastrophic • Liability is infinite • Train delay is intolerable SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

6. RRs Acknowledge Delays RRs agree they sometimes cause delays Each unit juggles 800 projects RRs have been downsized Highway projects don’t make money SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

7. States/Local Perspectives Railroad responses can be slow Railroad requirements can change Railroads charge too much Railroads demand changes which increase project cost Railroads demand indemnification SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

8. Findings • Much common ground exists • Both sides agree on common problems and best practices • Both recommend standard agreements • Both desire central points of contact • Both want experienced counterparts • Both want constant communication SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

9. Findings • Much common ground exists (cont’d) • Both want early coordination • Both want experienced consultants who understand railroad requirements • Both support annual process-improvement meetings • Neither use term ‘partnering’ but both embrace its concepts SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

10. Based upon Partnering Environmental Streamlining Project Management Institute Practices Continuous Improvement An Approach SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

11. Model Process Adoption SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

12. Promising Strategy Adopt a ‘Partnering’ framework between RR and DOT Clarify in writing how they want to interact Measure the results Continuously review, improve the process SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

13. Promising Tactics Appoint empowered central liaisons Agree to metrics on review times Meet regularly on project schedules Use standard agreements Train DOT and RR staffs on other’s processes, requirements SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

14. Promising Tactics(cont’d) Agree to escalation procedures Develop central project repository Conduct annual process-improvement meetings to regularly review and improve the process SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

15. Project-Level Example What does this mean on a project? Hold kick-off meetings Clarify roles and responsibilities Agree to a schedule Track the milestones Address issues quickly Escalate when necessary Track the metrics for measurement SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

16. Next Steps Final report August 31 Publication late this year Hope to create on-going process to sustain continuous improvement efforts SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies

17. Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies QUESTIONS ? THANK YOU Shobna Varma StarIsis Corporation SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies