Does anyone have information regarding farm road widths crossing railroad r/w, particularly in Oregon?
A 60' strip of land was deeded to the railroad in 1886, specifying that the RR shall make and maintain "two crossings for teams and machinery across the railroad track". There was no other specification for the crossings or location. The RR map shows a "Gravel Farm X'ing, 2-16' Gates" (one each side?) at the current property access, together with other crossings.
The attorney involved with this project would like to have a 25'-30' crossing for the client's development. I think there may be a problem with the gate width limiting the historic crossing width, absent a written agreement specifying width, without going to the RR to request something else, which may be a problem.
Any information or suggestions will be appreciated.
It sounds like your client wants to expand the use of an easement. The railroad is under no obligation to allow it. He will need to negotiate.
60ft is enough for a one lane county road that most any vehicle can navigate thru most terrain and when meeting other vehicles both would need to move to the edge of the road and larger vehicles would need to wait until the other vehicle clears the pathway.
RR is probably not going to put in a wider crossing unless it was agreed to do at the next time that crossing was replaced. They are prefabricated and brought by rail to insert into the existing railway with minimum down time.
The local communities talked with RR for years until agreements were made for road crossings and many were taken out for others to be made better.
It can become very costly....
I can see how an attorney would like to get a wider easement he knows how long it will take to make a deal with the RR company and is counting his billable hours.
The attorney involved with this project would like to have a 25'-30' crossing for the client's development.[/quote wrote:
Tyler, from my recent dealings with the RR, (UP owned Line, Portland and Western operating it) you should not proceed without discussing the crossing upgrade with them. If your clients attorney wants to increase the crossing and or change anything, I'd bet the signals, signage, drainage and crossing elements will need to be upgraded and at a minimum reviewed against current safety standards. They may be fine with the proposal of upgrading and give you a green light to produce some plans they can review but it's one step at a time.
Tyler,
My suggestion is that said attorney will have to convince the railroad that a Prius or UPS truck is equivalent to "teams or machinery". Until he can polish that argument I say assume that you need to seek alternative access or be prepared to shell out significant dollars to re-negotiate the terms of the license. If this is a main-line railroad subdivision the request will have to go pretty far up the food chain at the railroad.
BTW, I hope that you have the proper permission to be on the railroad property for land survey purposes. But that is another can of worms or bucket of bolts.
Dan
Fortunately, this is only a "short line" railroad with only a few trains per day. Currently no automatic gates or lights - just stop, see, and avoid.
I'm pretty sure there is no intent to actually change the existing crossing, but there is an issue of access width with the planning department.
Thanks all for the information - I'll pass it on.
"A 60' strip of land was deeded to the railroad in 1886, specifying that the RR shall make and maintain "two crossings for teams and machinery across the railroad track"."
The 60' strip was for the railroad to install and maintain its line, I believe.
The way I read it is that there were to be two crossing on the original owner's land. These could have been 1000 or more feet apart. No way do I believe the intent was to have a single crossing so wide that two "teams and machinery" could cross at the same time.
I have a private crossing on a UP route. It dates to about 1887-88. It is quite adequate for one-at-a-time traffic, including combines and large tillage implements.
I know this post was from Friday, so I am a little late in replying. But I will offer my 2 cents anyway. I am currently the right-of-way manager for a company that owns/operates 4 short line Railroads. One of my jobs is controlling access to the 170 miles of track we have and to prepare all of the license agreements for utility crossings, private crossings, pedestrian crossings, etc...
First, I would definitely contact the Railroad about this. Just like anyone else, they do not like to be the last ones informed about work being proposed in their right-of-way. And please don't go to them with a plan already prepared showing the location of improvements in the Railroad right-of-way, it just shows that you trespassed and will probably start things off on a bad note.
Second, a crossing that is installed, is there for a specific purpose. If it states that it is a farm crossing, then that's what it is and that's what it is to used for. If the use changes, the agreement changes. If they want to change a farm crossing to a private vehicular crossing, I am pretty sure the Railroad will want the crossing upgraded to at least an asphalt crossing, maybe lights and gates. The agreement will probably be modified or a new one prepared. And good luck getting the Railroad to install and maintain a new crossing at their expense. Also, a larger crossing with more than just farm equipment utilizing it means more liability for the Railroad. I would not be surprised if the Railroad would want to be compensated for taking on the increased liability.
I do not know the specifics of your situation, so these are just a few comments from my dealings with issues that are similar.
I was hoping you would weigh in on this thread.
Holy Cow, post: 327022, member: 50 wrote: I was hoping you would weigh in on this thread.
I try 😉