I am trying to deal with a road crossing project in one of the municipalities we own trackage through. They are demanding they be placed on our liability insurance policy, that we provide a $25000 Performance bond, list all the individuals who will be working on the project and apply and pay for a permit to excavate in Village Streets. I know this is wrong, but don't have the ability to fight with them. I just want the project done, so we can all benefit from it.


Anybody else have similar issues where you are at?

Are you sure the village owns the underlying land? In a lot of cases the RR predates the street and the crossing is actually RR property.

They don't. They are being, um, "difficult" (and most likely ignorant of Federal Law). Personal feelings are clouding judgement and actions within the law.

We have done 3 other crossings in town ourselves in the last 30 years without any of these requirements or issues.

I’m not a lawyer, don’t even play one on TV. However, I can tell you that providing a bond to work within a city street right of way is a common requirement. The bond shouldn’t be too expensive, I think ours typically costs $500 a year, though the price will vary based on numerous factors. I realize that’s a hit for a small railroad, but pretty sure it’s cheaper than taking them to court.

As for permits, it’s been my experience that they have no say over the track work, but as soon as you work in a city street, county road, whatever, then you do. As well as design approvals, materials requirements, inspections, etc. All pretty much standard. For added fun, include a crossing and you get electrical permits etc too, at least on the 120 volt side of the box.

Good evening folks,

Hmm ..... This is an interesting thread. I wanted to pass along a few thoughts.



Without knowing all the details about this particular grade crossing project, I would first caution any "group" that might own a line of railroad which it operates for historical purposes to always be respectful of your local officials, even if you believe they are "wrong".

Most people presume because they perceive themselves as owning a "railroad", therefore Federal rules apply. That presumption gets many people into trouble.

Grade crossings fall into the "shade of gray" area.

Most people presume that an active grade crossing automatically brings you under the FRA's jurisdiction. The mistake that is usually made is assuming ONLY the FRA can regulate your grade crossings. Many people forget that almost every State Public Utility Commission (PUC) also regulates grade crossings as well. This concept is called "concurrent jurisdiction", meaning both Federal and State authorities have the ability to enforce certain actions.

Without more information, its hard to offer some guidance without knowing more about the particulars, like:

"Who" is the railroad crossing "owner" ?
"Where" is the crossing located ?
"Why" is the crossing being repaired / replaced ?
"How" does the "owner" intend to conduct said repair / replacement ?
"When" do you want to perform this work ?

The information provided so far about the current "troublesome project" also doesn't really answer the "what" question either. The only thing we know is a grade crossing needs something done to it. That's it.

Before painting local officials with the "ignorant" label, it might be prudent to seek the help of the appropriate regulatory authorities if you feel your organization is being unfairly attacked.

Without a lot more detail, I can't offer any more help, except to caution you to not aggravate local officials.

You use the word “demand”. Does that accurately represent the relationship? Is it “demand” or “require”? Same physical need but different relationship.

The only aggravation is on our side. We have completed 3 other similar projects within this municipality without the need for any of these requirements. The person I am dealing with just hates us and always has. There was an incident in 1975 that he hasn't forgotten, and continues to hold it against us.



Yes, demand. Trying to see how many hoops we are willing to jump through.

The requirements of the municipality with its permit sounds similar to the requirements I had seen working 39 years for an investor owned water utility. They do not seem unreasonable -- very typical for any kind of excavation within a public roadway or adjacent ROW.

Hmm. Sorry. Maybe they weren't really paying attention before and someone decided to start following all the rules.

Don't take it too personal. Maybe their manager or insurer said they needed to tighten policies, maybe a bad experience with another construction project caused them to tighten their rules.

I oversee a County agency that requires permits for roadway work.

There are several reasons behind the request;

1) The Bond is required so if you, or your contractor do not finish the project, the Town has some recourse to get the work completed.

2) Insurance. What if someone on your project gets injured? Placing the Town on the insurance policy gives the Town the liability protection needed since you are crossing their roadway.

3) The permit fee pays for the Town employee(s) to review and check the liability insurance, bond, and inspect the work.

Realize the Town has the requirements to protect the taxpayers and the public. They are not saying you or your agency will do a poor job. But I am sure they have been burned in the past and that is why these requirements are in place.

While I appreciate all the comments that have been provided thus far, I was hoping to see if anyone else has issues with any town that they are going through to see if this type of situation is more common that I think it is. I have 39 years of Class I experience and this whole thing just is blowing my mind, especially since they set precedence (as far as I'm concerned) with no requirements on the other projects we have completed.

My experience is with railroads in Pennsylvania and New Jersey more than 7 years ago, and not in Ohio, where you seem to be. Except for the list of employees, it seems like standard business practices, much like what your railroad would require if the government wanted to repair a grade crossing across your tracks.

Also not a lawyer, but where a road crosses a railway line there's several ways in which rights of way are "owned" for lack of a better word. I'm reminded of a college that allowed a city to build a street over their land and found that they needed to shut it down "openly and notoriously" in order to prevent it from becoming an easement every so many years and losing some of their rights of fee simple ownership. An alley ran behind my house in Colorado that had been in open and notorious use for a century or more and a new landowner tried to close it unsuccessfully......... because we could document its continued use. A city law in Savannah allowed the Central of Georgia to build a line down River Street without giving up its ownership under conditions spelled out in the agreement....... so you might need to determine first the legal nature of the right of way for both the railroad and the street in order to understand the situation completely. A local attorney experienced in real estate is probably your best bet. At least check things out at the courthouse just in case. Good luck.

I'm with CJVRR on this. I'm surprised that you didn't have those requirements previously. After 25 years of doing municipal construction projects all over North America, I'd never seen otherwise. From a liability standpoint, those requirements protect both parties.