I have a utility company client that is, by Oklahoma Corporation Commission Tariff, required to provide electrical service to anyone in their service area, with construction fees that can be charged to the subscriber.
They have a prospective client, a R.R. Co., that needs a single phase line to operate some new switching equipment. At first the RR wouldn't allow a pole line on their own property. The utility engineer approached adjacent property owners about purchasing easement and they all said "poop and roll in it". I guess the RR has been less than a good neighbor.
Legal Dept. (for both sides) got involved. Apparently it wouldn't be a prudent move for the RR to try and force the utility company to condemn rw for the pole line. After six months now it appears as though the RR will reluctantly allow the utility company to occupy their precious property for about 4000'.
The RR folks and the utility folks have finally determined a proper location for the pole line. 5' inside the RR RW (duh..). Case closed? Noooo, not nearly.
The utility company requires an easement on private property with a policy of a minimum 16' easement for single-phase. This is apparently also something that is addressed in the Tariffs under which the power company operates. The RR Co. says they will dedicate 10'. The total RR RW width, btw, is 200'...it's not like there is a clearance issue.
Everybody agrees on the pole location in reference to the RR's property line. Now they are duking it out over what width of RW, even though the total width will not alter the location of the proposed poles.
This has gone on for over six months and will probably roll on for another six. It is sadly hilarious to observe both sides try and impress the other with their superior posturing.
Meanwhile, I get to write and rewrite, stake and restake...and charge fees. Apparently the $ is not a concern to either side...winning is the goal.
The R.R. and anything = insanity (and I work for one).
> The utility company requires an easement on private property with a policy of a minimum 16' easement for single-phase.
This seems reasonable to me. If the pole line is 5' inside the ROW, that leaves about 10' for the utility company to drive a truck past the pole line without straying outside their easement.
> The R.R. and anything = insanity
How true. Couple that with
Utility Companies and anything = insanity
And you got a problem. 😉
> > The R.R. and anything = insanity
>
> How true. Couple that with
> Utility Companies and anything = insanity
> And you got a problem. 😉
so if RR + anything = insanity & Utility Companies + anything = insanity.
RR + anything = Utility Companies + anything, subtract anything
and you get
RR = Utility Companies ??? or is my math wrong....:clap:
Your right on. In converting to the math world, insanity is much like infinity. Infinity + infinity = infinity.
You don't need to "double it" because [2 * infinity] still equals infinity.
There you go, trying to bring logic, into the fray.
More logic (and my apologies for that):
Exclusive (def.): excluding or not admitting other things.
The truck in question can actually drive over other, buried utilities without disturbing them.
Actually, I'd be surprised if there wasn't an existing "track" or traveled road to do that now.
Of course, that would take "planning".
The twist here is that's it's the railroad who wants the utility and who also doesn't want to allow it.
This is always an interesting process, for those inclined to that sort of entertainment; like a train wreck in slow motion.
This is what I see on a daily basis. The R.R. always wants to reserve the right to use every inch of their property for anything they might want to do in the future (or at least that's the story). Another issue, which I deal with on a daily basis, is the R.R. does not want anyone on their property. If this were on our property, the utility company would have to call each time they wanted to inspect, service, repair, etc... the utilities. This would require upfront planning on the utility company, up to date insurance provided to the R.R. by the utility company, possible safety training for the utility company staff, and possibly a watchman/flagman provided by the R.R. All of this even if it is a licensed occupation in the R.R. R/W by the R.R. I manage access to all of our property and is it an uphill battle everyday to keep people off of our R/W. But with that said, this situation seems a bit ridiculous 😉
> The twist here is that's it's the railroad who wants the utility and who also doesn't want to allow it.
You're exactly right with that observation. The guys with the RR that I come in contact with could care less where the poles are, they need the power to their equipment. One gent in a rail equipped pickup (not the dreaded "track police") has to make it by the site 4 times a day to make sure the switching is correct. He says it's getting old.
There seems to be some "super secret" skull-and-bones organization somewhere that rules all the great RR holdings. Something like the Wizard in "Oz"...with flames and roars and disdain for the common folks that appeal to the Wizard for direction.
I just wish we could bring him the broom stick of the wicked witch and he would grant us the easement.
az
that seems to be the problem. An easement allows the dominant estate ingress and egress to maintain their outside plant. I understand the RR's reluctance to allow that.
One of our RW agents had suggested the access fence be relocated to the rail side of pole line. While I thought that seemed like a good solution; that would require the RR to "cede" their occupation. Something RRs rarely do.
I did get an email this morning instructing me to proceed with a standard 16' easement parallel to, and 16' inside of the outside edge of the existing RR property line. This may be a resolution...and it may be more Fata Morgana. We'll see. :-/
The class 1's I work with have a simple way of dealing with this kind of problem. The local utility company brings the power to the right-of-way at which point the railroad takes ownership and responsibility for maintenance. Seems to solve any ROE issues.
John Putnam
That is how we are also, but there are many occupations that cross our right-of-way to service other parties. Those are the ones that are always the problem.