STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In re: APPLICATION OF POLK ) COUNTY FOR PERMIT TO OPEN AND ) CLOSE PUBLIC AT-GRADE RAILROAD ) CROSSINGS AT THE INTERSECTION OF )

THE SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD ) CASE NO. 77-2177 AND HUNT BROTHERS ROAD IN )

HIGHLAND PARK (Polk County) )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above styled case on February 9, 1978 at Bartow, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Gerald E. Towson

County Engineer

168 West Main Street Bartow, Florida 33838

For Seaboard Wayne Reiner

Coastline Railway: 3019 Warrington Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32205

For DOT: Frank King, Esquire Staff Counsel

Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

By application submitted May 20, 1977 Polk County, Florida requests permission to close a public at-grade rail/highway crossing 172 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Mile Post AVC-847 and to open a public at-grade rail/highway crossing 184 feet north of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Mile Post AVC-847. The only issue on which evidence was presented was whether the use of cantilevered flashing lights and gates were required for this crossing. Only one witness, the District Safety Engineer, testified in support of the cantilever flashing lights and gates.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Polk County proposes to relocate Hunt Brothers Road where it crosses the Seaboard Coastline Railroad near Highland Park some 350 feet to the north and to remove the existing roadway approach to the crossing.

   
   

2. Hunt Brothers Road is a two lane highway 24 feet wide. The existing road has no signalling devices or warning lights installed other than a railroad crossing sign.

3. Polk County proposes to put back-to-back flashing lights on each side of the road at the relocated crossing. However, the county has no objection to installing whatever signal devices are required at this crossing.

   
   

4. The approach to the proposed crossing provides greater safety than exists at the old crossing.

   
   

5. The new road exits a curve to the right 250 feet from the tracks. No other obstruction exists at this crossing, however, a second parallel track exists on which cars could be parked within 200 feet of the road. From the evidence adduced this appears to be a relatively short siding and not a track on which trains move.

   
   

6. One northbound and one southbound train moves over this track daily.

   
   

7. No evidence was presented that stanchions for flashing lights could not be located within 12 feet of the edge of the roadway.

   
   

8. There is no record of any accident at the existing crossing and the safety factor of the crossing was not computed and presented at the hearing.

   
   

9. The additional initial cost of installing cantilevered flashing lights and gates over the cost of installing roadside flashing lights is some $50,000. No cost benefit ratio or study showing the benefits to be obtained with use of the more expensive system was presented.

   
   

10. The principal reason for the District Safety Engineer's recommendation for cantilevered flashing lights and gates was that as the driver of a car negotiated the curve approaching the track his eyes would of necessity be focused on the center line of the road and would better see lights located over the center of the road. He acknowledged however that if lights were on both sides of the road the field of vision of a driver looking straight ahead as he exited the curve would include a light on the left-hand side of the road before one in the middle of the road.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

11. Regulations for signalling devices for new openings of at-grade railroad crossings are contained in Rule 14-46.03(3) Florida Administrative Code which provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    1. Minimum Active Grade Crossing Traffic Control Devices - All new public grade crossings shall have, as a minimum, roadside flashing lights and bells on all roadway approaches to the crossing, normally placed to the right of approaching traffic.

       
       

    2. Cantilevered Flashing Lights - Pairs of flashing lights placed on cantilevered arms extended over traffic lanes shall be employed under any one of the following conditions:

       
       

       1. Multilane highways.

       2. Sight restriction to the grade crossing.

       3. Stanchion located greater than 23 feet from centerline of roadway.

    3. Automatic Crossing Gates - Automatic gates in conjunction with flashing lights shall be installed if any one of the following conditions exist:

       
       

       1. Multilane highway.

       2. Multiple main line railroad tracks.

       3. Multiple tracks at or adjacent to the crossing which may be occupied by a train so as to obscure the movement of another train approaching the crossing.

       4. High speed train operation (greater than

          80 mph) or commuter train operation (greater than 45 mph).

       5. Traffic counts greater than 5,000 vehicles per day.

       6. Greater than 30 thru trains a day.

       7. Traffic with greater than 9 school busses per day and/or substantial number of trucks carrying hazardous material.

       8. Continuance of accident history after installation of flashing lights.

       9. Intersection within 200 feet of tracks (measured from the edge of travelway) providing intersection has traffic signals and/or there are heavy turning movements from parallel highway onto the tracks.

       
       

12. The evidence submitted did not meet the requirements for either cantilevered flashing lights or automatic crossing signals and no special circumstances were submitted which would require more than minimum active grade crossing traffic control lights with back-to-back lights on the stanchions erected on each side of the road. The field of vision of a driver exiting the curve to the right as he approached the crossing would first encounter the light on the stanchion to his left before encountering the light on his right side of the road.

    
    

13. From the foregoing it is concluded that the application to close at- grade crossing 172 feet south of SCL Railway Mile Post AVC0847 and to open an at-grade crossing 184 feet north of Mile Post AVC-847 will improve the safety conditions for this crossing. It is further concluded that back-to-back

flashing lights mounted on stanchions located within 12 feet of the roadway will meet the requirements of Rule 14-46.03 Florida Administrative Code above quoted. It is therefore,

RECOMMENDED that the application of Polk County be approved to close at- grade crossing 172 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Railroad's Mile Post AVC-847 and to open an at-grade crossing 184 feet north of Mile Post AVC-847 with the warning devices as specified in Rule 14-46.03(3)(b) Florida Administrative Code.

DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida.

K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1978.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Gerald E. Towson County Engineer

168 West Main Street Bartow, Florida 33838

Wayne Reiner

3019 Warrington Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32205

Frank King, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Docket for Case No: 77-002177

Orders for Case No: 77-002177