S. SUGAR CORPORATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated hearing officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on February 13, 1976 at West Palm Beach, Florida.
The following appearances were entered: Philip Bennett, Tallahassee, Florida, for the Applicant, Department of Transportation; and Mark V. Silverio, Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwoody, and Cole, Miami, Florida, for the Respondent, United States Sugar Corporation.
On January 12, 1976 the Department of Transportation ("Applicant" hereafter) filed an application with the Division of Administrative Hearings to construct a railroad grade crossing for relocated State Road 80 to cross over a railroad owned by United States Sugar Corporation ("Respondent" hereafter). The crossing would be located 40 feet north of mile post 10 of the railroad in Palm Beach County, Florida. The hearing was scheduled to be conducted by Notice dated January 22, 1976. The Applicant called the following witnesses: Allen J. Jacobson, a highway designer employed by a firm of consulting engineers which has been retained by the applicant to prepare construction plans for the relocation of State Road 80; and Jeffrey Leonard DuBois, the Applicant's District Railroad Coordinator, District 4. Applicant's Exhibit #1 was offered into evidence, and was received. The Respondent called the following witnesses: Clarence W. Knecht, a Vice President, Engineering of the Respondent; and M. Franklin Jones, the Respondent's Director of Office and Field Engineering.
Respondent's Exhibit #2 was offered into evidence and was received. Respondent's Exhibit #1 was referred to during the hearing, but was neither offered nor received into evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is seeking to relocate State Road 80 in Palm Beach County, Florida, and to construct a four lane rather than a two lane highway in order to accommodate increased traffic patterns. The relocated highway would cross the railroad owned by the Respondent 40 feet north of mile post 10.
The railroad is a single track line used to haul sugar cane during harvesting seasons. The line is used approximately five months per year. Four trains with from 5 to 50 cars would pass the crossing from each direction every
day during the harvesting season. These are low-speed runs, the trains moving at from 20 to 30 miles per hour.
Approximately 8,000 vehicles will use the relocated highway daily. Six hundred forty vehicles per hour would pass the crossing during peak traffic hours. The highway will be a four lane rural type divided highway. Each lane will be 12 feet wide. There will be a 64 feet paved median at the crossing.
The railroad track is located approximately 2 to 3 feet above ground. The highway design will be graded to meet the track at the level of the existing track. The safety of motorists would be adequately protected by installation of type four, class three warnings. These warnings would include flashing lights, bells, and gates. The lights would be cantilevered across the highway. Signalization would be activated by the trains approximately 30 seconds in advance of the train. The gates would come down 4 seconds later. The longest traffic hold-up would be approximately 2 to 3 minutes. The crossing itself would be a type "L" crossing. Type four signalization is depicted on Page 1 of Respondent's Exhibit #2, and is circled on the page. A type "L" crossing is depicted on page 4 of Respondent's Exhibit #2, and is circled on the exhibit.
The safety of motorists would be more fully protected by installation of advanced warning flashers in advance of the track. These flashers would serve to warn motorists that they are approaching a railroad track.
The safety of motorists would be most fully protected by installation of an overpass at the crossing. The traffic which will pass the crossing would not, however, justify the very substantial expense involved in constructing an overpass, and the fact that the railroad is used for only a portion of the year further renders the expense unjustified.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the parties.
A substantial need exists for the relocation and widening of State Road
80 in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The safety of motorists will be protected by installation of a class three, type four signal and by a type "L" crossing at the point where the relocated State Road 80 crosses the railroad owned by the Respondent. The safety of motorists would be more fully protected by installation of advanced flashers.
