STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: )

Petition of the Department of ) Transportation and Flagler County ) for permits to open a public at- )

grade railroad crossing and to ) CASE NO. 75-1403 close a public at-grade railroad )

crossing over the Florida East ) Coast Railroad Company track on ) State Road S-304 in Flagler ) County. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

PURSUANT TO NOTICE, a public hearing was held before Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer, Department of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings, in Bunnell, Florida on October 13, 1975, at 11:00 a,m, at the Flagler County Courthouse.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire

Attorney for the Department of Transportation

Witness: William Gray

For Petitioner: Noah C. McKinnon, Jr., Esquire

Attorney for Flagler County

Witness: Charles H. Cowart

For Respondent: Charles E. Evans, Esquire

Attorney for Florida East Coast Railroad Company

Witness: Frank Stuart ISSUE

The granting or denial of permits to open and to close public at-grade railroad crossing as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, 1973.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The petitioners are in the process of constructing a rural connector road between State Road 11 and U. S. Highway 1 in Flagler County. This is to be a two-lane twenty (20) foot wide pavement secondary road with the right-of-way acquisition and construction costs being provided by secondary gasoline tax funds allocated to Flagler County. The county has provided the necessary rights-of-way for the project. The project, as designed, provides for a

realignment of the existing road to afford a straight approach to its connection with U. S. Highway 1. This realignment will eliminate the existing railroad crossing that is presently signalized with passive signalization consisting of standard cross-buck signs. The closing of the crossing will also eliminate a hazardous condition due to the sharp angles involved in the highway alignment at the present crossing. The proposed crossing is to be approximately 600 feet north of the existing crossing. Provision has been allowed for ingress and egress to individuals living in the area. The proposed crossing will intersect with the railroad tracks almost perpendicularly. The railroad, at this location, consists of a single track. There are sixteen (16) freight trains scheduled per day with a maximum speed of 60 miles per hour. In the vicinity of the proposed crossing the railroad track is straight. There is a curve in the track approximately 700 feet north from the proposed crossing. As a part of the proposed crossing there is to be Type II signalization installed consisting of a train-activated cantilevered flashing lights and ringing bells. These cantilevered signals are to be mounted on roadside posts which will allow maximum shoulder clearance for a fixed object in accordance with current practice and still provide for two (2) flashing lights suspended directly over each driving lane. Traffic studies conducted by the Planning Section of the Department of Transportation reflect that at present approximately 87 vehicles per day use the existing crossing. It is anticipated that 100 vehicles per day will use the proposed crossing when it is opened and projections estimate that in twenty (20) years approximately 400 vehicles per day will use the crossing.

State Road S-304 is not used as a school bus route at this time nor is it anticipated that this road will be used for school buses in the foreseeable future.

Permits to open and to close the crossing as applied for should be granted.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, 1973, provides in part, that the Department of Transportation has regulatory authority over all public railroad crossings in this state. The purpose of this law is to minimize the hazards inherently connected with vehicular traffic crossing railroads. The evidence in this case shows that the petitioners have determined a need for the improvement of State Road S-304 by virtue of the joint effort in the acquisition of necessary rights-of-way, construction planning, and funding. It is further shown that an existing crossing with many hazardous features and only passive signalization will be eliminated while still providing residents in the area with the satisfactory ingress and egress into their properties. Since the new alignment of the highway is to be straight as it approaches the railroad and since the proposed signalization is designed to provide flashing lights extending out over the traffic lanes of this two-lane road, it affords the motorist unlimited visibility well in advance of the crossing when the signals are activated by an approaching train. This will afford vehicular traffic ample warning and enough time to come to a safe stop. It is also shown that there is a curve in the railroad a few hundred feet north of the crossing, however, a witness for the railroad testified that a train traveling at authorized speed would not be capable of stopping in time to avoid hitting an object on the crossing. He further testified that he considered gates necessary at the crossing due to visibility problems after which he conceded that the motorists would not have visibility problems in observing cantilevered flashing lights and that any visibility problems experienced in the operations of the train would be of no consequence since the train could not be stopped in such short distance.

It is therefore concluded that the safety of the motoring public as well as the railroad will be enhanced by the realignment of the road, the closing of the

existing crossing, and the installation of adequate signalization for the crossing. The type of signalization specified in the application for permits to open the subject crossing appear adequate in light of the facts shown at this hearing.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Permits as applied for by the petitioners are hereby granted conditioned upon the installation and the maintenance of signalization consisting of train activated, cantilevered flashing lights and ringing bells. Road signs warning motorists of the crossing shall be erected along the connector road.

FURTHER, the Department of Transportation shall conduct a periodic monitoring of land development and traffic patterns, at least once each year in the area for consideration in future signalization requirements.

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of October, 1975.

DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Charles E. Evans, Esquire

Florida East Coast Railroad Company One Malaga Street

St. Augustine, Florida

Noah C. McKinnon, Esquire Flagler County

Flagler County Courthouse Bunnell, Florida

Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Ernest M. Salley

State Utility Engineer Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Docket for Case No: 75-001403

Orders for Case No: 75-001403