vs. ) CASE NO. 82-1989
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. This hearing was conducted on December 7 and 8, 1982, in Room 409, Daniels Building, Jacksonville, Florida. This Recommended Order is being entered following the receipt and review of the transcript of proceedings which was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 7, 1983 Both parties have submitted proposed recommended orders and these proposals have been examined prior to the entry of the Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals are consistent with the Recommended Order, they have been utilized. To the extent that the proposals are inconsistent with the Recommended Order, they are rejected.
For Petitioner: Michael D. Hunt, Esquire
For Respondent: Charles C. Gardner, Esquire
The issues here concern the transfer of a portion of State Road 211 in Duval County, Florida, referred to as Grand Avenue. This transfer would be made upon Respondent's contention that the road is functionally classified as a collector and properly the subject for maintenance and control by Petitioner.
The City of Jacksonville has opposed this transfer based upon its belief that Respondent's classification of the road as a collector was inappropriate and that the aspect of the road, constituted of the Ortega River Bridge, is in a substandard physical condition when contrasted with contemporary roads of like
age and existing functional classification within Duval County and Jacksonville, Florida. See Subsection 335.04(1), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner presented the witnesses Stanley K. Nodland, City Engineer, Jacksonville, Florida; Charles E. Ison, Sr., Junior Engineer, Bridge Inspections Section, City of Jacksonville; Morris M. Napier, Associate Engineer, Bridge Inspections Section, City of Jacksonville, and Robert Lee Hill, Jr., City Highway Engineer, City of Jacksonville. Petitioner offered five (5) exhibits which were received.
Respondent called as its witnesses James H. Pittman, District Planning Engineer, Department of Transportation; James A. Moss, District Maintenance Engineer, Department of Transportation, and Stephan Fregger, Chief of Bureau of Transportation Systems Statistics, Department of Transportation. Respondent offered Exhibits 1, 1A and 2-12, which were admitted.
Following a series of workshops and meetings between the parties in this cause, allowing public comment in these sessions, Respondent determined to transfer approximately 3.1 miles of road to Petitioner for maintenance purposes. In formulating this policy decision, Respondent functionally classified the road as a collector. The road is referred to as Grand Avenue and includes the Ortega River Bridge. It is located in the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida.
The purpose of functional classification of the roadway in question was part of the classification exercise mandated by Subsection 335.0A(1), Florida Statute which began in late 1977 or early 1978. The overall classification requirement related to the entire state of Florida and it was to be concluded effective July 1, 1982. In addition to the sessions held between the parties and the general public, related to the road classification in question, other sessions were held in-house between the central office, Department of Transportation and its District Offices, to include District II. District II is the locale in which Duval County is found. This consultation by staff was designed to insure uniformity in the endeavor. To conclude the process of the state-wide classification, Respondent acted in accordance with Chapter 14-12, Florida Administrative Code, and relied on those definitional statements set forth in Subsection 334.03(14), (15), (16) and (17), Florida Statutes 1/, in establishing qualitative criteria for the statewide functional classification activity. In effect, definitions in the provisions form the basis of the criteria.
In the case of the subject road, particular emphasis was placed upon traffic volume, trip length, speed and access or mobility. Following the qualitative or subjective examination, Respondent decided that the Grand Avenue section should be classified as a collector road, as opposed to an arterial road or local road.
Petitioner does not agree that the read should be classified as a collector, based upon the belief that the Department has failed to promulgate and apply necessary criteria to functionally classify the road in question. Moreover, Petitioner is concerned that the bridge feature of the road is substandard. Therefore, on June 2A, 1982, steps were taken leading to the present Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence.
Respondent's Exhibit No. 1-A, admitted into evidence, is a traffic count map showing a substantial number of roads in Jacksonville. It depicts the average of four (4) traffic counts taken in 1977, at northwestern and southern ends of the road sought for transfer. At the southern end, 3,415 trips a day were averaged and in the northwestern area, 5,135 trips per day were averaged. This is a close approximation of the traffic circumstance on the road at the time of hearing. The map also features traffic counts for other collector roads in Duval County. Those counts are roughly comparable to the counts on the road in question.
Speed limit on Grand Avenue in the subject area varies from 25 miles per hour on the lower end of the street, to 15 miles per hour on some of the curves and in the northern area of the road, the speed limit is 35 miles per hour. The road has two (2) traffic lanes and the Ortega bridge is a two-lane bridge. The road is primarily designed to give access to surrounding property as opposed to granting mobility for through-traffic. There is a high number of local streets adjacent to the road and a number of driveways giving access to the road. The road is located in a predominantly residential area, constituted primarily of single family dwellings, with some apartments in the area of the bridge and small commercial complexes, referred to as neighborhood family stores.
Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence, is a map depicting the proposed system under functional classification. It shows state highways, county roads, collectors, minor arterials, city streets, and the urban boundaries of the area where the Grand Avenue section is found. With the exception of the state highway system tape, all other roads would be part of the city system for maintenance purposes.
At the northwest corner of the road in question, at the junction with Herschel Street and San Juan Avenue, the traffic count changes as you proceed north on Herschel Street. It increases to approximately 9,200 trips per day. Proceeding west on San Juan Avenue from the junction at Herschel, Grand and San Juan, the traffic counts increase to some 16,000 as measured in 1977. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 1A. For this reason and based upon other classification criteria, those sections of San Juan and Herschel are arterials and part of the state system. As an example of other criteria differences, San Juan Avenue is basically a commercial area with longer trip lengths than in the case in the area of the subject road.
Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence, is a map depicting the roads by functional classification in the greater part of Duval County, Florida, with a second sheet which more particularly indicates functional classification in the area where the transfer would be made.
Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence, contains a map depicting select collectors and arterial roads in Duval County. This map, in conjunction with other maps, demonstrates the similarity between the subject road and other collectors in Duval County in terms of traffic count, length of roadway and access or mobility. This map also identifies state, national and interstate roads. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 also has an element constituted of two (2) paces of charts comparing select collectors as to length, average daily trips, number of lanes, nested speed and land use. These charts establish the overall similarity between the collectors and the overall similarity between the arterials. These two (2) groups, i.e. the Duval collectors and arterials, bear
strong resemblance respectively to the definitions set forth in Subsections 334.03(15) and (16), Florida Statutes, supra.
With the exception of the bridge surface, the roadway in question was resurfaced in April, 1982. In comparison with roadways of other collectors in Duval County, with the exception of the bridge, the condition of the road surface in the subject area is good. The bridge surface is fair.
In summary, the facts as reported herein evidence the propriety of functionally classifying the 3.1 miles of State Road 211, known as Grand Avenue, to include the Ortega River Bridge, as a collector.
One of the major sections of the road to be conveyed is constituted of the Ortega Bridge. The bridge was built in 1926 and opened to traffic in 1927. It has a bascule span referred to as a walking or rolling bascule. This is the span that moves to allow boat traffic under the bridge. The draw span is operated by two (2) electric motors, activated by a bridge tender. The fixed portion of the structure is an arched type beam construction. The construction composition is made of concrete with reinforcing material. The bridge allows a load rating of H-20. The bridge is depicted in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2, a series of photographs, admitted into evidence. While forty (40) years is the average life of a bridge, this bridge has lasted fifty-seven (57) years.
The present condition of the bridge is spoken to through a series of inspection reports and ratings given the structure. Respondent, through its bridge inspection section examined the fixed spans of the bridge on August 10, 1981. A copy of the report that ensued may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, admitted into evidence. In speaking to the major elements of the fixed spans, the report has a numerical rating of the various elements. The ratings range from adequate in describing the fender system in the canal to excellent when describing the drainage system.
On August 19, 1981, Respondent also made an inspection of the movable spans. Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, supra. These numerical ratings range from fair, in describing such things as rack gears, curve tracks and flat tracks of the bascule span machinery, to excellent in describing the gear assemblies in the movable span elements. The gears had been subject to major overhaul in the years 1978 and 1979.
Notwithstanding the basically sound condition of the bridge as borne out by the 1901 inspection, a number of deficiencies were noted related to cracks in bridge columns, caps, webb walls and abutments/indents. Cavities were found in the rip-rap bags at abuttment 1. Cracks were noted in the beams and diaphragms. The asphalt surface of the deck was cracked and spalled and had bulges at certain areas of the joints throughout the structure, related to faulty expansion. (The approach slabs were improved with the resurfacing in April, 1982.) Spalled areas were found in the deck underside. The fender system had deteriorated substantially due to marine borers. The top track and walking pinion gear on the north side of the east leaf was found to not mesh properly when the bridge is being opened and closed. There was some deterioration found in beams/stringers/girders related to the movable span. All these matters and other deficiencies are more particularly described in Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, to include photographs. The report is found to be an accurate depiction of the bridge condition.
Respondent conducted a further inspection of the movable span in August, 1982, above water and underwater. A copy of the inspection report may
be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. These observations are substantially the same as was the case in the 1981 inspection of the movable spans. The observations in this report and the photographs with the report are found to be accurate.
A sufficiency rating through structure and inventory appraisal is reflected in a computer printout prepared on December 6, 1982. The rating is
71.5. It relates to all the major elements of the bridge. This information is basically comparable to the inspection reports alluded to before and is accepted as being substantially accurate. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 8, admitted into evidence. The ratings setting forth the principle elements of the bridge are taken from the Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges, a copy of which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 12, admitted into evidence. This is a publication of U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration. By utilization of the code system set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 12, the rating which is established through the structure inventory and appraisal printout ranges from marginal condition in appraising the deck geometry, to fair condition in describing the substructure, to generally good condition in describing the deck surface, as examples. An estimate of the cost of improvements, as set forth in the Exhibit No. 12, would be $80,000. The $80,000 improvements cost relates to the suggested improvements set forth on page 29 of the Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 and would cover such matters as sealing cracks, repair to rip-rap, etc. Some of those improvements are constituted of periodic maintenance, a prioritized item by the Department of Transportation. The state had not reached the place of making the periodic maintenance improvements to the bridge at the time of the final hearing in this cause.
For planning purposes, the Department of Transportation feels that the bridge would last at least five (5) years, from the date of the preparation of the structure inventory and appraisal information set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 12.
In October, 1982, Petitioner, through its bridge inspection section, examined the Ortega River Bridge. This inspection did not entail examination below the waterline. The results of the inspection are set forth in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, which has been described, are photographs taken during the course of the inspection. Some of the highlights of this report indicate substantial deterioration at the ends of the bascule span, exposing the wire mesh used to bond the asphalt surfaces which are adjacent to the bascule span. It depicts the difference in elevation between the bascule span and the adjacent asphalt spans. Nonetheless, automobiles are able to safely utilize that portion of the bridge where the asphalt span and bascule span are joined. It points out the deterioration of the tender system which is made of timber and has been decimated by marine borer infestation. It specifically points out the disarray of electrical wiring in the area where the electrical motors are found, which constitutes a safety hazard. Per the report, the deflection of the ends of bascule leaves, when in operation, is causing impact loading and vibration in the movable sections, especially when used by heavier vehicles. Essentially, the Petitioner' a inspection is commensurate with the observations of the Respondent in its inspection reports, Respondent's Exhibits 9 and 10. The City's reported observations on the bridge condition are accurate.
One of the support pillars for the bridge structure has rotated. The significance of this rotation was not established at the hearing; however, the rotation could reach a point where the pillar was no longer capable of bearing
the load. Likewise, the significance of the numerous cracks in the bridge members was not clearly established, other than the common agreement by both parties that those items need attention. Neither the Respondent nor petitioner has done extensive testing such as core sampling of the concrete material, sonigrams or x-rays to determine the relative strength and condition of the bridge structural members.
After considering the presentation of both parties on the subject of the bridge, and remainder of the road being transferred, as compared to other roads which are functionally classified in Duval County as collectors, the subject road is found to be physically comparable in its condition and appropriate for transfer. This determination relies on the fact that the road is being transferred as a unit. The bridge is not regarded as an item which warrants its own comparison to other bridges, when considering the transfer of the Grand Avenue section of State Road 211. Therefore, no factual discussion is made of a comparison of the Ortega River Bridge to other bridges in Duval County or out of the county.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. See Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
State of Florida, Department of Transportation, must establish a prima facie case in the matter of the functional classification of the Grand Avenue section of State Road 211, which is sought for transfer and related to the similar physical condition of that road compared to contemporary roads in the county or city where the road is found. This requirement is set forth in Subsection 335.04(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent has made such a prima facie showing and the motion for verdict in favor of the Petitioner, which was made at the close of the Respondent's case-in-chief, is DENIED.
Subsection 335.04(1), Florida Statutes, mandates that the Respondent, in keeping with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, devise a plan for functional classification of roads. Through enactment and compliance with Chapter 14-12, Florida Administrative Code, the convening of meetings to effect the purposes of the functional classification plan and the utilization of the definitional statements set forth in Section 334.03, Florida Statutes, related to "functional classification" of various types of roads, Respondent correctly effected the purposes of the functional classification plan. Criteria for the process were developed from the definitional statements in Section 334.03, Florida Statutes, as augmented in the meetings. In this instance, Respondent determined the proper functional classification of the 3.1 mile section of Grand Avenue, State Road 211 in Duval County, City of Jacksonville, Florida. The functional classification is collector. Therefore, it is appropriate to transfer it to the City of Jacksonville, for control and maintenance purposes, provided the road is in "a physical condition commensurate with contemporary roads of like age and existing functional classification within the county or city." Subsection 335.04(1), Florida Statutes.
Subsection 334.03(7), Florida Statutes, defines road as:
(7) "Road." - The term "road" shall be construed to include streets, sidewalks, alleys, highways, and other ways open
to travel by the public, including the
roadbed, right-of-way, and all culverts, drains, sluices, ditches, water storage areas, waterways, embankments, slopes, retaining walls, bridges, tunnels and viaducts necessary for the maintenance
of travel and all ferries used in connec- tion therewith.
"Road" includes the bridge as well as highway portion of this section to be transferred. The road is a unit which is made up of all features in that section. The Ortega River Bridge is simply another feature in the road, which does not warrant independent consideration when comparing the subject section of road to other collectors. The comparison of contemporary roads is of the entire road section. It is not a comparison of bridges and bridges, alleys and alleys, culverts and culverts, drains and drains, etc. It is a comparison of the entire road with all attendant features to other contemporary collectors within Duval County. Consequently to arrive at the decision on the condition of the road is a matter looking at this section along its entire length and determining whether the road in its entirety is comparable to other collector roads. It is not an exercise in which an examination of the bridge per se would deny the conveyance of the road from Respondent to Petitioner, based upon the fact that the bridge, when compared with other bridges either in Duval County or out of Duval County, would lead to the conclusion that the Ortega River Bridge is not comparable to a bridge of like vintage. When the bridge is examined as an integral part of the road section being transferred and the overall road section to be transferred is examined, having in mind that the road's primary purpose is to offer a means of travel for the public, this road section is comparable to contemporary collector roads in Duval County, in terms of its physical condition.
Having satisfied the requirement for functional classification, that functional classification as collector being one which entitles the transfer to the City of Jacksonville, and the road section having been found to be comparable in its physical condition to other collector roads in Duval County, the transfer is authorized. It is, therefore,
That a final order be entered which transfers the 3.1 miles of road, including the Ortega River Bridge, from the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, to the City of Jacksonville, Florida.
DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1983.
1/ (14) "Functional classification." - The assignment of roads into systems according to the character of service they provide in relation to the total road network. Basic functional categories include arterial, collector, and local roads which may be subdivided into principal, major, or minor levels. Those levels may be additionally divided into rural and urban categories.
Michael D. Hunt, Esquire Assistant General Counsel City of Jacksonville
Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation The Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
