Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Ronae Bernadette Keiser
Ronae Bernadette Keiser
Visitors: 35
0
Bar #286680(FL)    
Ponte Vedra Beach FL

Are you Ronae Bernadette Keiser? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

79-002183  SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD COMPANY AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. TOWN OF DAVENPORT  (1979)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Nov. 05, 1980
Petitioner proved keeping two at-grade crossings open would be hazardous. Close roads subject to allowing foot traffic over the tracks at one road.
79-000663  SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD COMPANY AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. PLANT CITY  (1979)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Oct. 22, 1980
By its Motion to Dismiss, Plant City raised the question of the jurisdiction and authority of the Department of Transportation to close a railroad crossing on its own initiative. In short, Plant City argued that under the Home Rule Provisions of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapter 375, Florida Statutes, Plant City had authority to regulate railroad crossings and was the only entity which could initiate the closing of a crossing within the city's corporate limits. The Department of Transportation and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company argued that Section 330.12, Florida Statutes, gave the Department authority to regulate the opening and closing of railroad crossings, and that this authority to open and close crossings anywhere in the state was exclusive. While it was argued that the Department had the authority to initiate such an action on its own initiative without a request from a local government or a railroad, this is not an issue based on the facts presented because the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company initiated the action to close the railroad crossings in question. The Motion to Dismiss was denied on the basis that the Department of Transportation and Plant City had joint authority to regulate railroad crossings in the city; however, the Department had exclusive authority to open and close railroad crossings in the state under Section 338.12(3), Florida Statutes. The remaining issue relates to a factual determination of whether the crossings in question should be closed. It was held that these determinations should be made in light of the criteria for closing railroad crossings and opening crossings as stated in Rule 14-46.03(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. The rule for closing a crossing states that a crossing is a candidate for closing if it does not have active grade crossing devices, has a traffic count of less than 1,000 vehicles per day, and has an access read to an adjacent crossing; however, closing should not be considered if it would increase the traffic on the adjacent crossing to the capacity level, or if the adjacent crossing is already at the capacity level. In addition, the criteria for opening a crossing are necessity, convenience, and safety of rail and vehicular traffic.Discussion of elements necessary for Department of Transportation (DOT) to close at-grade vehicle crossings of railroad tracks. Two crossings were closed and one left open.
79-002185  SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD COMPANY AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. CITY OF HAINES CITY  (1979)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Oct. 21, 1980
Petitioner didn't prove closing the at-grade railroad crossing in question would not hamper emergency traffic. Deny petition to close the road.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer