Railroad Private Crossing Agreement
Existing private crossing agreements are not transferable. Parties who purchase real estate with an existing private terminal must enter into a new private crossing agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad in order to continue to have legal access to their property, unless the crossroads is invoked in the original facts or by law. Some sites are not permitted for crossings due to construction and operating considerations such as the transverse siding, the tracks used for switching, special track work, sharp turns and other considerations. The Supreme Court found that RSA 373:1 effectively imposed an obligation on the railways to provide appropriate facilities for private crossings and that this included the obligation to permit the installation of underground pipes. The railways` argument about the constitutionality of the statute was dismissed as unfairly invoked. The court then agreed with the railway that the language of the 1870 relief act for an emergency crossing was not sufficient to support the installation of the underground pipes. The remainder of the case concerned a narrow issue concerning Sprague`s removal of a length of track considered a violation of an agreement between the parties. Union Pacific Railroad does not allow private access to land that has other reasonable access or has been distributed by a landowner and has sold part of its land. The Boston and Maine Railroad is the current owner and operator of an active railway line in Newington, built in the 1870s.
When the line was developed, the railway purchased a strip of land on which the line was built and granted the owner whose ownership of the line was dismantled by the line to cross the railway. Over time, the use of railways has declined, but the neighbouring country has moved from a farm to a large commercial oil distribution plant. Heating and fuel are transported by inland shipping to the Piscataqua River facility, dumped in storage tanks, and then driven under these tracks to a distribution depot where it is loaded into tank cars for transport throughout the state. All private hubs to be re-elected, existing or relocated are subject to union Pacific Railroad verification and approval. The review of a Union Pacific application for a private crossing by Union Pacific, which is authorized, is not implied by the review of a private crossing application, nor for applicants. The dispute erupted when the railways attempted to terminate existing licensing agreements to control the use of vehicle crossings on the railway line and to impose charges for the maintenance of underground fuel lines or, moreover, to stop the flow of fuel through the underground pipes. Sprague refused to pay the alleged charges and sought a judicial explanation that the crossing assistance allowed it to install the pipes under the railway line without any obligation to pay the railway or, alternatively, that RSA 373:1 required the railways to allow free construction and maintenance of the underpass. The railways argued that the language of the 1870 Facilitation Act did not permit the underground use of the land and that if RSA was required to provide adequate facilities for a crossing, the statutes would amount to an unconstitutional takeover of their property. To improve the safety of highway and rail intersections, Union Pacific supports the U.S. Department of Transportation`s goal of reducing the number of public and private border crossings by consolidating, eliminating, separating the level and limiting the number of new intersections installed. The Supreme Court continues to strictly and narrowly state the language of the facilities contained in the acts. Therefore, all public servants involved in establishing or verifying the facts of this type of capital transfer should be cautious as to the fact that the language actually used accurately describes all the actual or potential uses of facilitation that the parties