Talk:236.14 Change in Route Status Report - Revision history

EPG-Admin: address question

2009-01-20T16:15:56Z

address question

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:15, 20 January 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:

	http://epg.modot.mo.gov/files/d/d2/236.14_Fig_1_and_2_Details_for_Proper_Section_Termini.pdf		http://epg.modot.mo.gov/files/d/d2/236.14_Fig_1_and_2_Details_for_Proper_Section_Termini.pdf

			'''Sam Masters''':A Change in Route Status is really a property ownership issue. The change in "route" refers to '''land''' not pavement. The "absorb" or "convey" refers to ownership of the land on which the pavement rests. In essence, the pavement goes along for the ride.

			When we "absorb" the right of way of the old alignment, we keep it within the right of way limits of the new alignment.

			When we "convey" the right of way of the old alignment to others we transfer ownership of the land we owned within the limits of the former right of way that now lie outside the limits of the right of way for the new alignment.

EPG-Admin at 13:22, 15 January 2009

2009-01-15T13:22:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:22, 15 January 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In the Figure 1 (link below), it shows that the "absorb" starts at the "beginning of new r/w purchase" or ends at the "end of r/w purchase". Shouldn't it state "beginning of new alignment" or "end of new alignment". Correct me if I'm wrong, but a change in Route should refer to the point when the route changes and not the right of way?		In the Figure 1 (link below), it shows that the "absorb" starts at the "beginning of new r/w purchase" or ends at the "end of r/w purchase". Shouldn't it state "beginning of new alignment" or "end of new alignment". Correct me if I'm wrong, but a change in Route should refer to the point when the route changes and not the right of way?

	Sometimes we have ample existing right of way where the new road starts its re-alignment before the need of of new right of way. It is this section that I am referring to that should be considered within the lmits of "absorb".		Sometimes we have ample existing right of way where the new road starts its re-alignment before the need of new right of way. It is this section that I am referring to that should be considered within the lmits of "absorb".

	http://epg.modot.mo.gov/files/d/d2/236.14_Fig_1_and_2_Details_for_Proper_Section_Termini.pdf		http://epg.modot.mo.gov/files/d/d2/236.14_Fig_1_and_2_Details_for_Proper_Section_Termini.pdf

EPG-Admin: New page: In the Figure 1 (link below), it shows that the "absorb" starts at the "beginning of new r/w purchase" or ends at the "end of r/w purchase". Shouldn't it state "beginning of new alignment...

2009-01-05T19:30:55Z

New page: In the Figure 1 (link below), it shows that the "absorb" starts at the "beginning of new r/w purchase" or ends at the "end of r/w purchase". Shouldn't it state "beginning of new alignment...

New page

In the Figure 1 (link below), it shows that the "absorb" starts at the "beginning of new r/w purchase" or ends at the "end of r/w purchase". Shouldn't it state "beginning of new alignment" or "end of new alignment". Correct me if I'm wrong, but a change in Route should refer to the point when the route changes and not the right of way?

Sometimes we have ample existing right of way where the new road starts its re-alignment before the need of of new right of way. It is this section that I am referring to that should be considered within the lmits of "absorb".

http://epg.modot.mo.gov/files/d/d2/236.14_Fig_1_and_2_Details_for_Proper_Section_Termini.pdf