Code is 15'6" above most roads and driveways. It is a bit less over yards, I can't remember off hand. Obviously the more clearance the better.
On Saturday, June 24, 2017, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > Well, with max truck height of 14 feet, you sure want to be above that. > > *From:* Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:02 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Avoid 'make ready' by using my own poles > > I just saw some about that short yesterday with telephone drop cables on > them, so mabe. You also have to consider the terrain changes. Often the > road is slightly elevated for drainage, and the line may be running down > hill for instance. With a 35' pole we can maintain good clearance in most > circumstances, and it's not too expensive. > > I need to be 16 feet above state roads. Other circumstances could allow > as low as 14'. So far I've given those numbers a wide margin because I > don't want to assume that the wire won't stretch or have something leaning > on it to bring it down. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <lists.wavel...@gmail.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: 6/24/2017 10:01:22 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Avoid 'make ready' by using my own poles > > > What is minimal pole size and cost for a small pole for communications > wire? 25 foot pole? 5 foot in ground and 20 foot above ground? That would > get you roughly 5 feet of sag allowance between poles since I was told 15 > feet is the lowest your wire can be to the road. > > Also is there any ROW laws that give a county/municipality the right to > deny you an application to set another row of poles on the opposite side of > the road from electric poles when you obviously could place more wires on > the electric poles? > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Jason McKemie < > j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: > >> The NEC that the local power coop goes by is 40" below neutral for a >> conductive cable, and 30" for non-conductive. >> >> >> On Friday, June 23, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >>> The zone around primary conductors that you have to keep out of. Rule >>> of thumb is 10 feet, but there are legal specs. Actually secondary too but >>> that is normally 12-18 inches. >>> >>> *From:* Adam Moffett >>> *Sent:* Friday, June 23, 2017 11:43 AM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Avoid 'make ready' by using my own poles >>> >>> This is going to be an ignorant question, but what is the clearance >>> zone? >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: ch...@wbmfg.com >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Sent: 6/23/2017 1:16:21 PM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Avoid 'make ready' by using my own poles >>> >>> >>> You can’t force them to use your pole. >>> Your pole cannot encroach on the clearance zone. >>> >>> You can always put your own poles in ROW that is clear from other pole >>> lines. >>> Across the street is probably fine depending on easements. >>> >>> You can always go underground for a span or two. That will be less >>> expensive. >>> >>> *From:* Adam Moffett >>> *Sent:* Friday, June 23, 2017 11:09 AM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Avoid 'make ready' by using my own poles >>> >>> So, our most common make ready issue so far has been old poles that are >>> relatively short and we can't stay the required distance from the power >>> equipment and also be far enough above the existing phone line. Sometimes >>> we can use a standoff or other solutions to avoid the issue, but sometimes >>> the pole needs to be replaced. It's never less than $5,000, could be as >>> much as $10,000. >>> >>> What I'm wondering is this: We can get a new 35' pole for $800. We can >>> get a new 50' pole for $1500. Is there any reason I couldn't just avoid >>> make ready expense by setting our own pole instead of using theirs? Even >>> with guy wires, permit, and easements it's almost guaranteed to be less >>> expensive. Maybe I would put a 35 footer on the opposite side of the road, >>> for example. Or maybe we set the new 50 footer right next to theirs and >>> even let them move onto our pole if they want to. It seems too easy and >>> I'm wondering if there's a catch I'm not thinking of. >>> >>> >>> >>> > >
