Transcript Varma Railroad - AASHTO - Subcommittee on Design

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
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
AN APPROACH
•
Based upon
•
•
•
•
Partnering
Environmental Streamlining
Project Management Institute Practices
Continuous Improvement
SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies
10
MODEL PROCESS ADOPTION
PARTNERING PROCESS AND PROJECT SUCCESS
PARTNERING PROCESS
(FIGURE 2)
MASTER
AGREEMENTS,
PROCESSES &
PRACTICES
ADOPTION AT
PROJECT LEVEL
MANAGEMENT OF PROJECTS
CHANGES/
FEEDBACK
PROJECTS
PROJECTS
PROJECTS
EVALUATE PROJECT
OUTCOME
SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
NEXT STEPS



Final report August 31
Publication late this
year
Hope to create ongoing process to
sustain continuous
improvement efforts
SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies
16
RAIL-DOT MITIGATION STRATEGIES
QUESTIONS ?
THANK YOU
SHOBNA VARMA
STARISIS CORPORATION
SHRP 2 R-16 Rail-DOT Mitigation Strategies
17