STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CITY OF BRADENTON, FLORIDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-1756

) SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD, and ) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice a public hearing was held before Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer, Department of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings, at the Chamber of Commerce Conference Room in Bradenton, Florida at 10:30 a.m. on December 10, 1975.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: RONALD LARSON

Commissioner of Public Works

For Respondent: W. I. CRABTREE, Trainmaster (Railroad) Seaboard Coastline Railroad

For Respondent: PHILIP S. BENNETT, Esquire (Department) Office of Legal Operations

Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

ISSUE

Whether the Florida Department of Transportation should issue a permit for the installation of a railroad crossing in the vicinity of the S.C.L. Railroad Company Milepost, 775 feet North of Milepost SW-873 on the alignment of 12th Avenue, East, Bradenton, Florida.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having heard the testimony of witnesses for the Petitioner and Respondents and the arguments of those witnesses appearing and of counsel for the Department of Transportation on the issues and considering the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows:

1. Petitioner, City of Bradenton, Florida is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, duly authorized to establish and maintain city streets within the boundaries of the City of Bradenton, Florida.

2. The City of Bradenton has heretofore filed an application with the Dept. of Transportation of the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 338.21 Florida Statutes for permission to establish a graded railroad crossing for 12th Avenue East between 9th and 10th street East, a city street, proposed to intersect the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracks approximately 775 feet north of Milepost SW-873 of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad.

   
   

3. 12th Avenue would serve that portion of the city which has experienced rapid development and substantial increase in population.

   
   

4. An existing crossing on 13th Avenue was technically closed by the city but in fact both public and private use is made of the crossing. The 13th avenue crossing is hazardous as now used and opening a crossing as proposed on 12th Avenue would take most of the pedestrian and vehicular traffic off 13th Avenue, and reroute it to 12th Avenue where the visibility is not restricted. The nearest public crossing is 9th Avenue between seven hundred and eight hundred feet away from 13th Avenue and a crossing is needed nearby. The parties agree that the 12th Avenue crossing is needed and that the 13th Avenue crossing is hazardous.

   
   

5. The 13th Avenue crossing will remain a private crossing.

   
   

6. The city and the railroad company agree:

   
   

   1. That a permit should be granted for the 12th Avenue crossing.

   2. That the crossing involves a switching operation of ten slow movements or less a day with no night traffic.

   3. That heavy use is involved only at the Tropicana plant work-time when employees are going to work or after work. Employees now use the 13th Avenue crossing.

   4. That a cross-buck, together with a flagging operation, is sufficient signalization.

   5. That a cross-buck together with a flagging operation will still be use at the 13th Avenue private crossing.

   6. That the proposed crossing is desirable and necessary and the proposed signalization is sufficient to protect the general public.

      
      

   7. The city agrees to bear the expense of installing the signalization and maintaining such crossing.

      
      

   8. The Hearing Officer further finds:

      
      

      1. The proposed crossing is necessary and desirable.

      2. The signalization is adequate as planned, to protect the public.

      3. The Petitioner city needs the crossing. The respondent railway company does not oppose the opening providing signalization and mainte- nance be provided by others. The respondent Department of Transportation safety engineer

         recommends that the permit be granted to open the crossing conditioned on: (a) the use of a flagman, (b) compliance by the city with the Manual on uniform control Devices 2B-42, 2C-31, 3B-16 (painting the railroad crossing sign on

         pavement, use of railroad warning disk, providing cross-bucks), (c) minimum sight distance, as agreed on by the railroad and Department of Transportation standards, (d) the crossing being constructed and maintained by other than the Department of Transportation.

      4. The city Petitioner has agreed to install cross-bucks and to maintain the crossing in safe and usable conditions.

         
         

         CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

         
         

   9. Chapter 338.21(3), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department of Transportation of the State of Florida shall have regulatory authority over all public railroad crossings in the State, including the authority to issue a permit for the opening and closing of such crossings.

      
      

   10. The necessity for the crossing has been established both from the current vehicular traffic and from the projected increase in population and vehicular use.

       
       

   11. The cross-bucks signalization and the flagman procedure is adequate to meet public safety standards.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Grant a permit for the proposed crossing conditioned upon the recommendation of the Department of Transportation safety engineer as described in "Finding of Fact 8 C.", supra.

December 24, 1975.

DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND

Hearing Officer

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

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Buzard, Bennett, Crabtree, Larson

Docket for Case No: 75-001756

Orders for Case No: 75-001756