Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The public rights-of-way (ROW) managed by local governments have been a source of perennial conflict between municipalities, utilities, and other private companies that require access to ROWin order to distribute their services. In recent years, advances in telecommunications technology and new federal legislative initiatives have combined to create much greater demands for public ROWoccupancy and simultaneously limit the authority of local governments to regulate and charge entities for the use of ROW. Accordingly, local governments have devised and implemented a variety of fee-based mechanisms to collect revenue from private firms in exchange for their use of public ROW. This article explores the various fee structures that have evolved for permitting or applying for ROWoccupancy, obstruction or disruption, excavation or degradation, use or rental, or franchised use. It also reports briefly on the limits to local ROW management authority created by federal legislation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Armstrong, E. L. (Ed.). (1976). History of public works in the United States 1776-1976.Chicago: American Public Works Association.

Boyer, M. C. (1983). Dreaming the rational city: The myth of American city planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cauley, L. (1997, December 18). Open and closed: Genuine competition in local phone service is a long distance off. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1-A1.

Estrella, J. (1996, April 19). With more franchises come more headaches. Multichannel News.

Federal Communications Commission . (1997, June 27). Policy statement on state and local rights of way and telecommunications service competition. Local and State Government Advisory Committee. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/state&local/recommendation1.html

Industry-municipal division on franchising, ROWissues still evident . (1996). Telecommunications Reports, 62(24), 1-1, 5-6.

Jacobson, C. C. ,& Tarr, J. A. (1996). Patterns and policy choices in infrastructure history. PublicWorks Management& Policy, 1, 60-75.

Klingler, R. (1996). The new information industry. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

League of Minnesota Cities . (1997, June). Public right of way cost recovery plan. St. Paul, MN: Springstead.

10.

Let cities test marketplace for value of PROW use . (1996). State and Local Communications Report, 14, 31-31.

11.

Marvin, S. , & Slater, S. (1997). The new urban infrastructure crisis: Competition for urban space. Public Works Management & Policy, 2, 148-158.

12.

McCombs, H. K. (1997). Pricing the right-of-way: Suggestions for city managers. State and Local Communications Report, 15, 2-2.

13.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock ,& Stone, P.L.C. (1996). Implementing the new telecommunications law: A county and local officials guide to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.

14.

National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. (1995, June). Local ROW management.

15.

Nunn, S. (1998). Public rights-of-way, public management, and the newurban telecommunications infrastructure. Public Works Management & Policy, 3, 51-72.

16.

Rosenberg, E. A. , & Rubia, S. (1996). Rights of way and other customer access facilities: Issues, policies, and options for regulators. Columbus: National Regulatory Research Institute, Ohio State University.

17.

Tarakji, G. (1995, May). The effect of utility cuts on the service life of pavements in San Francisco. San Francisco: Author.

18.

U.S. Census Bureau . (1997). 1990 to 1996 cities and places population estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Pricing the Use of Public Rights-of-Way

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References