Right Of Way Expert

Workflows

This skill bundles three workflows for linear-infrastructure right-of-way work. Route by task:

Key Concepts

Right-of-Way (ROW) Definition

ROW is the legal corridor needed for infrastructure operation and maintenance. Specifications vary by infrastructure type:

Transmission Lines (Hydro):

• Width: 20-90m depending on voltage (69kV to 500kV)
• Restrictions: No permanent structures, height limitations, access requirements
• Operators: Hydro One, municipal utilities, independent power producers

Pipelines:

• Width: 10-40m depending on product type and pressure
• Restrictions: No excavation within buffer zones, weight limitations, access requirements
• Operators: Enbridge Gas, Enbridge Liquid Pipelines, regional gas distributors

Transit Corridors:

• Width: 15-50m depending on mode (LRT, subway, commuter rail, BRT)
• Restrictions: Exclusive use, grade separation requirements, noise/vibration buffers
• Operators: Municipal transit authorities, GO Transit, provincial rail agencies

Utility Conflict Analysis Framework

Six-phase workflow. Detailed examples, cost tables, coordination scripts, risk matrices, and best-practice expansions live in utility-conflict-playbook.md — load it whenever you need the worked examples or the cost numbers, not the skeleton.

Phase 1 — Utility Inventory and Conflict Identification

1. Obtain utility locates — submit Ontario 811 request (5-10 business days) and contact each operator directly (Hydro One, Enbridge Gas, municipal utilities, telecom, conservation authorities). Locate drawings give ±0.3m accuracy with depth, type, and specifications.
2. Geometric conflict detection — classify by horizontal proximity (in ROW = direct; <5m = high; 5-15m = medium; >15m = low) and by vertical interaction (parallel stacking, perpendicular crossing, grade separation).
3. Classification matrix:

Canonical example (115kV transmission corridor, 45m width): a gas pipeline 8m from the ROW edge is HIGH RISK (requires relocation or increased clearance); a telecom cable 3m from the centerline is a DIRECT CONFLICT (mandatory relocation); a water main 12m out is MEDIUM (coordination required); a fiber line 25m out is LOW (standard notification). See playbook for the LRT vertical-conflict example and full locate-request procedure.

Phase 2 — Relocation Design Requirements

Each utility class has standard design options. Pick by cost, schedule, and constraint fit:

• Hydro transmission (NESC, CSA C22.1, Hydro One standards) — new parallel route ($500K-$2M/km), underground burial ($2-$5M+/km), or clearance agreement ($10-$50K).
• Gas pipeline (CSA Z662, Utility Commission, Enbridge standards) — parallel relocation ($300-$800K/km), grade separation in casing ($400K-$1M), or directional drill ($600K-$1.5M).
• Telecom / water / sewer (CSA B411, municipal standards) — route-around, casing crossing, aerial route, parallel relocation, or pressure-main conversion depending on the asset.

Full pros/cons and per-option detail in the playbook.

Phase 3 — Cost Estimation by Utility Type

Order-of-magnitude per-km ranges (see playbook for full pressure/voltage/diameter tables and cost-component breakdowns):

Phase 4 — Coordination Timeline

Typical multi-utility corridor sequence:

Month 0-3:   Utility ID & design (locates → meetings → relocation design → permits)
Month 3-6:   Easements & regulatory approvals (ROW, environmental, municipal, Utility Commission)
Month 6-12:  Utility relocation execution (transmission on critical path; gas/water/sewer/telecom in parallel)
Month 12+:   Main project construction begins

Critical path items and delay risk:

1. Transmission switchover — ±3-4 months if low-demand window missed
2. Gas pressure testing — ±2-3 months for regulatory issues
3. Municipal permits — ±1-2 months
4. Environmental approvals (species at risk) — ±3-6 months

Full Gantt-style breakdown and dependency chain in the playbook.

Phase 5 — Utility Owner Coordination

Each operator has its own stakeholder map, meeting cadence, document set, and cost allocation convention:

• Hydro One — ~40% project / 60% utility split; weekly meetings during switchover.
• Enbridge Gas — utility typically 50-75% of relocation; design approval gate at Month 3.
• Municipal water/sewer — project typically 75-100%; some jurisdictions require full project funding.
• Bell/Rogers telecom — project typically 50-100%; minimal regulatory oversight.

Detailed cadence and document checklists for each operator in the playbook.

Phase 6 — Risk Assessment

Track schedule and budget risk on a structured register. Highest-impact items:

• Transmission switchover window missed (Medium probability, 3-4 month impact) → schedule 2-3 backup windows.
• Environmental survey required (Medium probability, 3-6 month impact) → conduct early if species at risk possible.
• Transmission line relocation cost upside +30-50% → maintain 2-3 design alternatives, negotiate utility share.

Full schedule risk table, budget risk table, specific-component escalation breakdowns, and the five mitigation strategies (early engagement, multiple options, geotech, regulatory pre-coordination, contingency planning) are in the playbook.

Tooling

The /right-of-way-analysis slash command integrates conflict detection with cost estimation. See the playbook for invocation patterns and a complete sample input JSON file.

Location Overview Generator

Generates a location overview for an Ontario property given a PIN (9 digits) or municipal address. Orchestrates geocoding, queries provincial/municipal/heritage/brownfield/TRCA/GTFS/census providers, and produces a consolidated markdown or JSON report — useful for scoping ROW conflicts, heritage constraints, and environmental flags before detailed conflict analysis.

Run location overview:

cd ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/right-of-way-expert/scripts
python3 -m Location_Overview.main "100 Queen Street West, Toronto"
python3 -m Location_Overview.main --format json "150 King Street West, Toronto"
python3 -m Location_Overview.main --no-save "123 Main Street, Mississauga"

CLI flags:

• input (positional) — PIN (9 digits) or municipal address
• --format / -f — markdown (default) or json
• --no-save — print only, do not save
• --verbose / -v — verbose logging

When to Use

• Scoping ROW conflicts, heritage constraints, and environmental flags before detailed conflict analysis
• Drafting the "Location Overview" / "Neighbourhood Description" section of a CUSPAP-compliant appraisal report
• Address research ("describe the location of [address]") for an acquisition target
• Validating that a corridor route avoids floodplains, Heritage Conservation Districts, or contaminated sites
• Establishing regional context, transit accessibility, and planning framework for a subject property

Three-Phase Workflow

The Python script handles Phase 1 (API data collection). Phases 2 and 3 are performed in-conversation by the model after reading the script output.

1. Phase 1 — API Data Collection (automated) — parse input as PIN (9 consecutive digits, e.g. 123456789 or 12345-6789) vs. address; geocode and resolve municipality; query Nominatim, Ontario GeoHub, Toronto/Ottawa Open Data, Overpass API, Heritage Registry, Brownfields ESR, TRCA Conservation, Transit GTFS, Census Demographics; emit consolidated markdown or JSON.
2. Phase 2 — Deep Web Research (skip when speed matters) — supplement API data using WebSearch and WebFetch across five domains: Municipal Planning, Heritage, Environmental, Development Activity, Market Context. Full query templates and municipality-specific anchor domains in location-overview-playbook.md.
3. Phase 3 — Narrative Synthesis — combine API output and web findings into flowing prose suitable for direct paste into an appraisal report. Do not emit tables or bullet lists in the final narrative.

Narrative Output Structure

The narrative must follow CUSPAP location description conventions and cover all ten sections in order: (1) Property Identification, (2) Regional Context, (3) Neighbourhood Description, (4) Transportation & Accessibility, (5) Amenities & Services, (6) Planning Framework, (7) Development Activity, (8) Environmental Considerations, (9) Market Context, (10) Conclusion.

Full paragraph counts, content checklists, and CUSPAP-specific guidance per section are in the playbook.

Quality Criteria

• Prose, not tables — reads like an appraisal report section, not a data dump.
• Specificity over generality — name the building, developer, Secondary Plan, transit station, conservation authority; quantify distances.
• Attribute findings — note API data vs. web research so a reviewer can verify.
• Flag uncertainty — explicitly note when planning application status, environmental clearance, or assessment data could not be confirmed; recommend verification.
• Respect the limits — no PIN-to-address resolution via OnLand/Teranet; MPAC requires paid subscription; web-sourced planning status may be stale.

Save Convention

Save the final narrative to: $CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR/Reports/YYYY-MM-DD_HHMMSS_location_overview_narrative_[address_slug].md

Present to the user: the full narrative text in chat, the saved file path, the list of data sources used (API + web), and verification recommendations for any uncertain items.

Best Practices (summary)

1. Early utility engagement (Month 0-1, not 3-4) — saves 2-3 months by identifying fatal flaws before detailed engineering.
2. Systematic conflict documentation — spreadsheet with utility, location, type, priority, options, recommendation.
3. Design-phase coordination — weekly utility meetings during Months 2-4, not quarterly.
4. Timeline integration — never start main project construction before all utilities are fully relocated and tested.
5. Cost contingencies — typical 25-50%; 40%+ justified for high-risk items (transmission switchover, directional drilling).
6. Owner relationship management — single point of contact, 24-hour response, monthly status (weekly during construction).

Full expansions, key questions per utility, sample contingency stack, and deliverables checklist in utility-conflict-playbook.md.

Related Skills

• expropriation-timeline-expert (expropriation-law) — critical-path scheduling with utility relocation integration
• land-assembly-expert (this plugin) — multi-parcel acquisition phasing
• easement-valuation-methods (appraisal-valuation) — compensation valuation when an easement is taken

Key Terms

• Right-of-Way (ROW) — Legal corridor required for infrastructure operation and maintenance
• Geometric Conflict — Spatial conflict between proposed ROW and existing utility (horizontal or vertical)
• Relocation — Moving existing utility to alternative location, alignment, or elevation
• Grade Separation — Utility crosses over or under another with clearance (bridge, casing, directional drill)
• Switchover — Temporary service interruption while transferring from old to new alignment (critical for transmission)
• Directional Drill — Boring under surface to cross utility over existing infrastructure
• Cased Crossing — Underground casing protecting utility as it crosses another utility
• Cathodic Protection — System protecting steel pipelines from corrosion (requires relocation coordination)
• NESC — North American Electric Safety Code (transmission line clearance standards)
• Pressure Testing — Pressurizing pipeline to verify integrity after relocation (regulator-required)
• Environmental Mitigation — Actions to minimize ecological impacts of relocation work
• Critical Path — Sequence of activities that determines minimum project duration
• Switchover Window — Specific time period when utility can be de-energized (e.g., low-demand season)