Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-smoke.ARPA
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-smoke!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Fiber Optics along the New York State Thruway
Message-ID: <618@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 15-Jan-86 16:55:27 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.618
Posted: Wed Jan 15 16:55:27 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 00:13:12 EST
References: <296@yetti.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: USAMC ALMSA, St. Louis, MO
Lines: 31

In article <296@yetti.UUCP> mike@yetti.UUCP (Mike Clarkson ) writes:
>the whole state to Erie PA.  Current law prohibits use of Interstate
>rights of way for utilities, which might endanger motorists or traffic.

The presence of the comma in the sentence above leads me to two
interpretations: the law prohibits *only* those utilities which might
endanger motorists or traffic; or, the law prohibits *all* utilities, on
the grounds that they might endanger motorists or traffic.

If the former, maybe there is no need to amend the law. A fiber optic
cable cannot endanger anybody or anything, except if someone uses it to
hang you! No voltage danger, not heavy enough to hurt if it fell on you,
etc. (Though I would expect it would be buried.)

If the latter, is the rationale that the servicing required by any
utility lines (installation, maintenance/repair, connecting new
branches, etc.) would require the Interstate and the motorists on it
be subject to danger from the presence of the servicing vehicles and
workmen? (If so, I would think they would ban road-maintenance crews,
too!) If that was the reasoning, and it was believed to be a valid
danger, such danger would still exist whether the utility was laying
or repairing fiber optic or electic wire or gas mains, so just because
it might be convenient to use the Interstate right-of-way would not be a
good enough reason to get the special waiver. 

I would find it interesting to know which interpretation is correct.
(By the way, putting in that fiber optic cable along that route sounds
like a good idea to me, so don't interpret any of the above to mean that
I am campaigning against it!)

Regards, Will