Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend that the application of the Petitioner-Applicant for the subject railroad crossing at Northwest 74th Avenue, between 74th and 77th Streets in the City of Medley, Florida, be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Lubow, Esquire City Attorney of Medley, Florida 819 Dupont Plaza Center Miami, Florida 33131 Phillip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Humes, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Respondent Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084
Findings Of Fact At present, near the proposed crossing on S.W. 184th Street, there are three existing railroad crossings located in the "Fifth District" of the Florida East Coast Railway System which runs from Kendall Junction south to Florida City. The filing of Dade County's application to open a crossing at S.W. 184th Street prompted the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) to file an application to close S.W. 186th Street. Specifically, there is presently a crossing on S.W. 186th Street, a crossing to the north, at milepost 381 (Hibiscus), and a crossing to the south at milepost 382 (S.W. 107th Avenue). If the proposed application for the opening of S.W. 184th Street is granted, the site will be located approximately 900 feet to the north of the S.W. 136th Street crossing. As such, if the crossing at S.W. 186th Street is retained, there would be three public crossings within a distance of approximately 3/5ths of a mile and four public crossings in a distance of approximately one mile. Within the immediate area, FEC currently has tri-weekly service on a regular basis over the existing crossing sites with regular movement of hazardous materials and cargo on such trains. The cars are loaded, moving from north to south and empty, moving from south to north. Included among the commodities transported by FEC is jet fuel for Homestead Air Force Base. Additionally, train movement includes maintenance work trains, which are subject to daily movements, and extra trains when business dictates. The normal speed limit for trains in this area is 40 miles per hour, subject, of course, to slow orders for maintenance work. U.S. 1 is immediately to the east and parallel to the FEC Railway System at all of the subject crossings. Homestead Avenue borders the railway system to the west between Hibiscus and S.W. 186th Street. The testimony presented and introduced indicates that U.S. 1 is a crowded highway very close to capacity, with no planned improvement north of the proposed crossing within the next five years. There are, however, plans to upgrade Homestead Avenue between S.W. 184th Street and S.W. 186th Street. S.W. 186th Street is a two-lane road which runs primarily in an east/west direction from Krome Avenue to just east of U.S. 1, where it terminates in a residential area. The area between the Homestead extension of the Florida Turnpike and U.S. 1 consists mainly of warehouses with limited retail outlets and a branch of the U.S. Postal Service. Access to the industrial area southward is along U.S. 1 with a southwesterly turn on S.W. 107th Avenue and from the west by use of either S.W. 186th Street or S.W. 184th Street. Entrance to this area from the north is gained by the use of the Florida Turnpike and from the south by use of S.W. 107th Street. Adjacent to S.W. 186th Street, between the Turnpike and U.S. 1, is an industrial area rapidly developing with warehouses and retail outlets. A main arterial which divides the industrial area in a north/south direction, is S.W. 107th Avenue, which crosses the FEC tracks to the south and then intersects with U.S. 1. The average traffic count in 1977 on S.W. 186th Street was 12,600 vehicles daily. These figures resulted from a joint count taken by the County and the State. This count centered around S.W. 186th Street in the vicinity of Homestead Avenue and at the intersection of S.W. 186th Street and U.S. 1. It is estimated that with the opening of the S.W. 184th Street crossing, approximately 6,000 vehicles per day would be diverted to that area from S.W. 186th Street. Opposition to the closing of the S.W. 186th Street crossing came from the business community situated in the industrial area and from the County. There were no opposing public witnesses such as surrounding homeowners or persons requesting east/west access at the hearing to voice opposition to the subject 186th Street application. While most of the opposition witnesses expressed an interest in keeping both the 186th Street and the proposed 184th Street crossings open, they all conceded that access is possible in the area and further, and that the inconvenience caused by closing the 186th Street crossing and opening the 184th Street crossing would result in an additional travel distance of no more than approximately one-half mile. It suffices to say that the opposition from the business community centers primarily upon the merchants and/or developers' desire to provide "direct" access into their respective locations. For example, witnesses from the U.S. Post Office located near the 186th Street crossing testified that if the 186th Street crossing is closed and the means of ingress and egress into the area be via 184th Street, an additional five minutes per route daily would be added to the carriers' route. Testimony introduced during the hearing indicates that the population trend is moving in a westerly direction and that the Post Office itself would use the Turnpike to serve all of their facilities in the west. The County introduced approximately 24 exhibits in support of its application to open the 184th Street crossing. The various exhibits generally show the various classification of minor and major arterial streets in the area. The County's engineer, who expressed an in-depth knowledge of the area, testified that both crossings are highly desirable and necessary, although he admits that with the opening of the 184th Street crossing, ample access will be possible into the subject area. In support of its position to close the 186th Street crossing if the 184th Street crossing application is granted, the Florida East Coast Railway offered the testimony of Joseph Rice, an independent consultant and a Registered Professional Engineer who was accepted as an expert witness during the hearing. Mr. Rice testified that it was not essential that both crossings remain open at the same time, inasmuch as it was possible to handle sufficient vehicular capacity at the 184th Street crossing. He emphasized that in view of the fact that S.W. 184th Street is considered a major arterial route and in view of the County's long-range plan of developing 184th Street as a major arterial in addition to the length of S.W. 184th Street, the logical place to place a crossing would be S.W. 184th Street. Mr. Rice testified that under today's traffic count of approximately 13,000 vehicles per day, a four-lane divided facility would accommodate the traffic in either location and a six-lane facility would accommodate traffic even up to the County's year 2000 projection of approximately 24,000 to 26,000 vehicles on S.W. 184th Street and 7,000 vehicles on 186th Street. He added that with the addition of a four-lane road at S.W. 184th Street, a reduction in travel time and congestion in the area around 186th Street would result. Finally, he testified that the lessening of "conflict points" would enhance the safety of this area. In this regard, according to the testimony introduced by FEC, the subject district is one of the highest accident districts for FEC. After due consideration of the above and in view of all of the reasons introduced by Mr. Rice to the effect that the proposed crossing at S.W. 184th Street is sufficient when properly constructed to handle ingress and egress in the area, a reduction of "conflict points" within a resultant increase in overall vehicular safety, the minimal inconvenience stemming from the closing of the S.W. 186th Street crossing, and the County's long-range and present plans to designate S.W. 184th Street as a major arterial route, dictates that the crossing be closed at S.W. 186th Street and that the new proposed crossing be opened at S.W. 184th Street. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the proposed application to open an at-grade railroad crossing at S.W. 184th Street (Milepost 382 + 1529') be granted. Additionally, it is recommended that the crossing at 184th Street be equipped with cantilevered flashing lights, gates and bells to provide maximum safety to vehicular traffic. In view of the foregoing recommendation, it is additionally recommended that once the at-grade crossing at S.W. 184th Street is completed, the at-grade crossing at S.W. 186th Street be closed. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
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.
Findings Of Fact On March 26, 1979, the Department filed an application for the closing of two railroad grade crossings known as Orange Street at Milepost A-825.48 and Murphy Street at Milepost A-830.30. Both crossings are located within the corporate limits of Davenport, Florida. The track which intersects the crossings services four passenger and ten freight-trains each day. The speed limit over the crossings is restricted by city ordinance to fifty miles per hour. Neither of the crossings is equipped with active grade crossing traffic control devices. Prior to recommending the closing of a crossing, a Railroad Committee within the Department meets and reviews petitions for closure. The committees primary concern in deciding whether to close a crossing is public safety and a secondary concern is public necessity. Additionally, convenience of the local population Is considered. The Orange Street crossing is utilized primarily by passenger cars and small trucks. In the twenty-four hour period in which traffic was counted, 696 vehicles used this crossing. The profile of the Orange Street crossing is very poor because the road is approximately seven feet higher than the railroad tracks, thus requiring a motorist to stop on a steep downhill grade when approaching the crossing. Cross-bucks are the only signalization at the crossing. The Department has proposed two alternate routes, Magnolia and Bay Streets, for the traffic presently utilizing the Orange Street crossing. Magnolia Street has recently been renovated and is scheduled for installation of flashing lights and gates in October, 1980. Because of the renovation and installation of lights, Magnolia can accommodate the expected added traffic. Bay Street currently has flashing lights and can accommodate the anticipated added traffic since it had a traffic count of 547 vehicles in a twenty-four hour period. There would be no substantive difference in adverse travel time for a motorist using either Magnolia or Bay Streets as opposed to Orange. Both crossings are safer than Orange Street. The Department does not propose to close sidewalks which cross the tracks at Orange Street and are utilized primarily by residents of a nearby retirement home. In regard to the other crossing which the Department seeks to close, Murphy Street, two alternate crossings are suggested, Magnolia Street and Bargain Barn Road. During a twenty-four hour period in which traffic was counted, 256 vehicles used the Murphy Street crossing. This crossing is inherently dangerous for long trucks or tractor-trailer vehicles due to its abrupt vertical profile or "hump." The Murphy Street crossing ends in a "T" intersection and its closing would not hinder police or emergency services. The Magnolia Street crossing can accommodate the increased traffic which will result from the closing of Murphy Street. This crossing is almost level and is approximately 1,600 feet from Murphy Street crossing. Bargain Barn Road or State Road 547, is another alternate crossing. This crossing is safer than Murphy Street in that lights and gates were installed in March, 1980. It is 1,200-1,300 feet or a quarter of a mile away from the proposed closed crossing and would not cause adverse travel for local motorists presently using Murphy Street. The current traffic count at Bargain Barn is approximately 732 cars per day which would increase to approximately 860 if Murphy Street were closed.
The Issue Whether permits for two public at-grade railroad crossings should be granted.
Findings Of Fact By application the Agrico Chemical Company seeks permits to open two public at-grade railroad crossings by constructing a spur track between the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and Agrico Railroad beginning 1,868 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Mile Post SVC 851 at Agrock, Florida. The application involves opening two public at-grade rail highway crossings by new rail line construction. The local popular name of the road is Fort Green Road and Payne Creek Road. Two tracks were constructed less than two years ago so that the Seaboard Coastline Railroad could come off their main line and come into Agrico and pick up loaded or unloaded cars for transportation to the south, north and west. Agrico now desires to construct a track which more directly ties into what they term their Payne Creek trackage to the southeast. The new crossings would come straight across the Seaboard Coastline mainline into the Fort Green trackage. Agrico would have to spend less time on Seaboard Coastline trackage and the plan is to erect electric signal crossings whereas there are no electric signal crossings in the area at the present time. Such signalization would render the crossings less hazardous. The Petitioner Agrico will pay for the signalization at both crossings. Signalization consists of bells and signal lights. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad will maintain the crossings and signalization at the expense of the Petitioner Agrico. There are twelve trains per day. The Respondent Seaboard Coastline Railroad was not represented at the hearing, but a letter was introduced stating that "Seaboard Coastline will indicate no objections to these crossings when the appropriate public hearing is scheduled". The Respondent Department of Transportation reviewed the subject application and expressed the desire of the district railroad committee that Agrico Chemical Company pay for the installation of flashing lights and that the installation would conform to the manual on uniform traffic control devices pertaining to signalized railroad crossings. It also stated that in the interest of good safety practices, no buildings should be constructed or plantings made that would prevent good sight distance at the crossing. Additionally, the Respondent Department of Transportation suggested that the railroad crossings be maintained by "other than the Department of Transportation". The Hearing Officer further finds: The application for new railroad trackage is in the interest of the Petitioner Agrico Chemical Company and is in the interest of the public using the two railroad crossings. Signalization as planned will increase the safety of vehicular traffic.
The Issue Whether the application of the Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC) to close the subject railway crossing should be dismissed for lack of regulatory jurisdiction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a propane gas distribution facility adjacent and parallel to the FEC railroad track within the Town of Lantana. The railroad track is between Petitioner's facility and U.S. Highway 1. To reach its property from U.S. Highway 1, Petitioner's employees must utilize a railroad crossing commonly known as Gator Culvert. The Gator Culvert is an at-grade railroad crossing. On October 13, 1948, the Town of Lantana acquired a right-of-way for road purposes at the Gator Culvert from Everett Wurtz, Petitioner's predecessor in title. On December 13, 1948, FEC and the Town of Lantana entered into a one-year renewable license to use the crossing for public road crossing purposes contingent upon the Town of Lantana assuming the cost of maintaining the crossing. On June 26, 1979, the Town of Lantana quit-claimed its interest in the right-of-way to Gator Culvert.2 On March 29, 1996, Petitioner filed suit against FEC seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding its rights to use the Gator Culvert crossing. This litigation is pending in Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. On June 28, 1996, FEC filed the subject application with Respondent for authorization to close the Gator Culvert crossing. On October 2, 1996, Petitioner amended the complaint that underpins the Circuit Court litigation to join Respondent and the Town of Lantana as defendants. By Count One of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner (referred to as Plaintiff in the Circuit Court pleadings) requests the Court to: . . . grant a declaratory judgment ruling that Plaintiff has a way of necessity purusant to F.S. Section 704.01(1) and that Defendants FEC, FDOT, and Town of Lantana may not close the crossing and thereby prevent Plaintiff's use of its way of necessity. Plaintiff further requests a trial by jury pursuant to F.S. Section 86.071. By Count Two of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner requests the Court to: . . . grant a declaratory judgment ruling that Plaintiff has a prescriptive easement and that Defendants FEC and the Town of Lantana may not close the crossing and thereby prevent Plaintiff's use of said easement. Plaintiff further requests a trial by jury pursuant to F.S. Sectioln 86.071. By Count Three of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner requests the Court to: . . . enter a temporary and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendant, FDOT from granting FEC's application to close the crossing; to restrain and enjoin Defendant FEC from ceasing to maintain and from closing the railroad crossing which provides the only access to Plaintiff's property; and to restrain and enjoin the Town of Lantana form executing the Stipulation for Approval of Closure3 or participating in any way with the attempted closure of said crossing. Count Four of the Amended Complaint pertained only to the Town of Lantana and did not involve Respondent. On August 14, 1998, Respondent published its Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application to close the subject railroad crossing in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This notice set forth Respondent's rationale for dismissing the application to close the Gator Culvert crossing that FEC had filed June 28, 1996, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The history of the crossroad, and its current condition indicate that it is not a public road. In particular, on the 26th day of June 1979, the Town of Lantana quit- claimed its interest to the right of way for public road purposes to Gator Culvert. While the prior status of the road as a public road is in doubt, this transaction effectively abandoned the right of way as a potential public roadway. Because the crossing is not a public railroad-highway grade crossing, the location is not subject to the Department's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 335.141, Florida Statutes. . . . On September 4, 1998, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with Respondent, the pleading that underpins this proceeding. On September 10, 1997, the Respondent issued a rails inventory that identified the Gator Culvert crossing as a private crossing. Scott Allbritton, Respondent's Rail Programs Engineer, reviewed and assessed the documents in the public record in processing FEC's application that were necessary and appropriate to determine whether the subject crossing was public or private, thereby determining whether Respondent lacked jurisdiction to regulate the subject crossing. His investigation revealed that the record title to the subject crossing was private. Based on Mr. Allbritton's investigation, Respondent determined that it lacked jurisdiction to regulate the subject crossing since it was not a public crossing. Respondent did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in making that determination. Respondent does not attempt to adjudicate real property disputes by its administration of the statutorily mandated railroad/vehicular traffic crossing program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that dismisses this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1999.
The Issue Whether the at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue and Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 104 + 172' in Ormond Beach, Florida should be closed.
Findings Of Fact By application the Florida East Coast Railway Company seeks a permit to close an existing at-grade public railroad crossing located in Volusia County, Florida, at Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 104 + 172' in the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue. There exists a standard cross buck sign or fixed sign at the subject crossing and there is a vehicular stop sign on each side of the crossing. There is a total of sixteen freight rail movements and a total of two local freight rail movements crossing each day. In addition to these scheduled moves there are a few unscheduled movements such as work trains. The speed limit for this area is 35 m.p.h. A 24-hour traffic survey was set up on Lincoln Avenue just west of the railroad-tracks where the number of vehicles counted was 567. The 24-hour period started at 11:00 a.m. on November 18, 1975, and continued until 11:00 a.m. on November 19, 1975. There is no sight problem from south to north but from north to south there is a curve that bears to the right coming into Lincoln Avenue which gives a railroad sight problem. For vehicles there is a sight problem going from west to east, but no sight problem going from east to west. There have been four documented accidents at the crossing: one in 1962, one in 1965, and two in 1973. There has been expansion of the city to the areas particularly west of the railroad tracks and north of the crossing at State Road Lincoln Avenue is the only crossing between State Road 40 and State Road 5A. It is approximately 1.5 miles. There is a need for a railroad crossing in the area as an alternate to the crossing on State Road 40. The railroad suggests bells, flashing lights and gates, in the event this application to close is not permitted. The Department of Transportation recommends flashing lights and bells, suggesting that gates would be better, but such signalization adequate. The City did not recommend a type of signalization but did recommend that the permit to close be denied. The Hearing Officer further finds: The permit should be denied inasmuch as there is a need for the crossing; The crossing should be signalized to make it less hazardess; Signalization without gates is adequate.
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation should issue a permit for the installation of a public at-grade railroad crossing in the vicinity of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad track, 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 on the alignment of Baya Avenue, East of Lake City, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony of witnesses for the petitioner and the arguments of counsel and those witnesses appearing for the Department of Transportation on the issues and considering the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, is duly authorized to establish and maintain a primary system of highways within the boundaries of the State of Florida. The Petitioner has heretofore filed an application with the appropriate division of the Department of Transportation of the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 330.21 Florida Statutes, for Permission to establish a graded railroad crossing for Baya Avenue (U.S. 90) within the city limits of Lake City, Florida on the state primary highway system proposed to intersect the Respondent Railroad's tracks approximately 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad. The Respondent Railroad Company did not appear although the record shows that Notice of Hearing was properly given and that plans of the project and proposed signalization were duly sent by letter dated October 8, 1975. There was uncontroverted testimony by Mr. Terry Crews, Assistant District Utilities Engineer for the Petitioner that Mr. R. A. Kelso, Chief Engineer, Design and Construction, Southern Railway System had discussed a portion of the project by telephone with Mr. Crews and no objections were raised. No letters of objection were filed. The Petitioner is in the process of constructing a new four-lane vehicular thoroughfare. This construction is necessary in the rerouting of vehicular traffic through Lake City, Florida (U.S. 90). As a part of this construction it is necessary to cross the railroad and State Road 100 which lie adjacent to each other. It will be a four-lane divided highway with a painted median, with curbs and gutters in the vicinity of the crossing. At the time of construction, the railroad will consist of single-line trackage that carries two (2) trains per day at speeds of approximately 20 miles per hour. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 vehicles per day will use this facility by 1984. Studies conducted by Department of Transportation personnel reveal that the crossing should be signalized with cantilevered flashing lights, ringing bells and pavement markings in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This signalization should be interconnected with vehicle traffic signalization located at State Road 100 to control vehicular traffic at the highway crossing as well as the railroad crossing. The applicant agrees to install and maintain such signalization. The Hearing officer further finds: The proposed crossing is necessary and desirable; The signalization is adequate as planned, to protect the public; The Petitioner needs the crossing; The Respondent has not opposed the crossing; The Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, will Install and maintain the crossing.
The 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: 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. 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. 12th Avenue would serve that portion of the city which has experienced rapid development and substantial increase in population. 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. The 13th Avenue crossing will remain a private crossing. The city and the railroad company agree: That a permit should be granted for the 12th Avenue crossing. That the crossing involves a switching operation of ten slow movements or less a day with no night traffic. 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. That a cross-buck, together with a flagging operation, is sufficient signalization. That a cross-buck together with a flagging operation will still be use at the 13th Avenue private crossing. That the proposed crossing is desirable and necessary and the proposed signalization is sufficient to protect the general public. The city agrees to bear the expense of installing the signalization and maintaining such crossing. The Hearing Officer further finds: The proposed crossing is necessary and desirable. The signalization is adequate as planned, to protect the public. 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. The city Petitioner has agreed to install cross-bucks and to maintain the crossing in safe and usable conditions.
Findings Of Fact The proposed crossing is located at Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC) Mile Post 284.6 and would be formed by extension of Medical Center Drive (renamed Jupiter Lakes Boulevard) across the FEC tracks to Alternate A-1-A. The proposed crossing would be located within the jurisdiction of the city of Jupiter, Florida. The proposed crossing would affect an area bounded by US 1 on the east, the Florida Turnpike on the west, Indiantown Road on the north and Donald Ross Road on the south. See FEC Exhibit A. There is no necessity for opening the proposed crossing. The proposed crossing is located 0.32 mile south of the existing crossing at Toney Penna Drive. Access to the area served by Medical Center Drive is available via Old Dixie Highway (0.32 mile) or via Toney Penna Drive and Military Trail (0.99 mile). The existing crossing has lights, bells and gates. It would be more convenient to open the proposed crossing permitting direct access to Medical Center Drive; however, the convenience to the public would be minimal as indicated by the distances to Medical Center Drive via the alternate routes from the existing crossing at Toney Penna Drive. Because Medical Center Drive runs only 0.5 mile between Military Trail and Old Dixie Highway and cannot be extended to the east, the convenience to the public of opening the proposed crossing would be further minimized. Opening the proposed crossing would not enhance traffic flow onto or off of Alternate A-1-A when there is railway traffic because the proposed crossing is so close to the existing crossing that the gates and warning devices of both would have to operate simultaneously. Ref. Transcript of second hearing, page 132 (II - 132). The traffic volume is discussed in Paragraph 6 below. The opening of the proposed crossing would be detrimental to vehicle and rail safety because it would create another conflict point at which vehicular and rail traffic converge. No evidence of the degree of increase in danger was presented. The current traffic volume at the existing Toney Penna Drive crossing does not warrant opening the proposed crossing at this time, as indicated by the fact that it is not signalized (I - 208). It would be approximately five to ten years before the traffic volume approached the maximum capacity of the Toney Penna Drive crossing. The opinion of the city's expert was that in five years the Toney Penna Drive crossing would be unable to handle a peak traffic volume, but this assumed left turns off of Toney Penna Drive onto Old Dixie Highway would be permitted during peak hours (II - 113-118). This turning traffic was the primary impediment to moving the projected volumes of traffic. The crossing would be adequate with these left turns prohibited (I - 265). Traffic volumes are projected to increase, but improvement of any of the existing crossings will reduce volume at the remaining crossings (II - 113-118). Plans exist for the reconstruction of Alternate A-1-A in the area of the Toney Penna Drive crossing and the proposed crossing as a part of a rebuilding project to be undertaken in the next year to three years, to include improvement of the existing crossing. The operation of the railroad would be hindered by opening of the proposed crossing. The FEC track is essentially a single-lane track running north and south on the east coast of Florida. This railway line provides rail service to the major population centers on the east coast of the state. Trains are operated north and south on the single-lane track at the same time, and pass on sections of dual track installed for this purpose. It is desirable that these sections of dual track be three miles in length. Crossings over dual track are not desirable because they are more dangerous than single-track crossings. The number of three-mile sections of track without crossings is decreasing, and the section of track between Donald Ross Road and Toney Penna Drive is one of the few remaining three-mile sections of track in the south- central Florida region without crossings. Because of increased rail traffic resulting from the energy crisis, efficient operation of the railroad and safety requires that provisions be made for dual passing tracks without crossings (II - 128-130, 147, 150).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend to the agency head that the application for opening of a grade crossing at Medical Center Drive over the FEC tracks at Mile Post 284.6 be denied, and that the railroad crossing and intersect ion at Toney Penna Drive and Alternate A-1-A be redesigned and upgraded to accommodate the increased traffic volume projected for the future. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerome F. Skrandel, Esquire Old Port Cove Plaza 1200 US Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 John W. Humes, Esquire Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN OF JUPITER, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-781 FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent. /
