The Issue Whether an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Southwest 5th Avenue and 2,625 feet north of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Foot 731 in Williston should be opened.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, City of Williston, applied for a permit to construct an at-grade railroad crossing 2,625 feet north of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Post SR-731 and Southwest Fifth Avenue, if extended, in the City of Williston for the purpose of providing access from an undeveloped but intended residential area of the City. There are two (2) Public at-grade crossings in the area. One is located 1,360 feet north of proposed crossing at Southwest First Avenue and one is located 625 feet south of the proposed crossing at Southwest Seventh Avenue. The subject railroad track is a lead track used for providing service to railroad custoners located north of proposed crossing in the City of Williston. Approximately six (6) train movements occur each week and the maximum speed is 25 miles per hour. There is a heavy stand of trees in the Southwest quadrant of the proposed crossing. Southwest First Avenue runs east and west to the south of the existing Williston High School and north of an elementary school and, although there have been discussions as to whether the street should be abandoned if the proposed road Southwest Fifth Avenue is opened, no official action has been taken. There has been no detailed planning by the City as to the following: Where the Southwest Fifth Avenue as proposed should connect to Southeast Fifth Avenue across the proposed railroad crossing; The cost of construction and maintenance of the crossing and the cost of warning devices that might be required at the crossing and the financing of same; What the estimated traffic count would be across the proposed crossing from the hospital that is in the vicinity and from the schools in the vicinity; Whether the railroad company would grant an easement for the crossing across the railroad property; and Whether a road could or should be built paralleling the railroad and connecting with an existing crossing. Is is the further finding of the Hearing Officer: There has been insufficient planning on the part of the Petitioner City of Williston as to the use or hazards in the proposed crossing; There are insufficient fact available to the Hearing Officer to make a determination as to the necessity or the safety of the proposed crossing; and The Florida Department of Transportation recommended that it proposed crossing was opened, the maximum protection should be a minimum of flashing lights, ringing bells, proper signing and pavement markings. No other recommendations were made.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the at- grade railroad crossing over the CSX railroad tracks located at Mottie Road in Gibsonton should be closed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, CSX Transportation, Inc. operated a railroad running generally north and south through the city of Gibsonton, located in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for the licensing and permitting of at-grade railroad crossings located on the public roads of this state. The Petitioner, Concerned Citizens of Gibsonton Area, Inc. is a private citizens group whose purpose is the betterment of living conditions in the community. The at-grade crossing in issue is located where Mottie Road crosses the CSX tracks in Gibsonton. On January 26, 1996, CSX submitted an application to the Department to close the Mottie Road crossing. That crossing was one of three crossings proposed for closing. Pursuant to the requirements of the Department, a public hearing was conducted on the closings at which the railroad presented its proposal and affected citizens were given an opportunity to submit matters in opposition to the closings. On April 25, 1996, after a review of the matters submitted by the applicant and by the public at the hearing held for that purpose, the Department issued the instant Intent to Issue permit. There is only one track at the Mottie Road crossing. Mottie Road is paved and is approximately twenty feet wide at the crossing. It supports an average daily traffic of approximately 434 vehicles per day. It is, primarily, a rather short residential street though it does carry some commercial traffic. It runs east and west. One end of Mottie Road ends where it intersects with Roosevelt Road on the east and the other ends at US Highway 41 just west of the crossing. The crossing has no active signal, but motorists are advised of the crossing by cross-bucks at each side. Nundy Avenue is the east-west roadway just north of Mottie Road. Whereas Mottie Road runs for only several blocks, Nundy Avenue runs from Lula Street, a north-south street west of US Highway 41, east to its intersection with East Bay Road, almost out to Interstate Highway 75. Nundy Avenue is the first east-west thoroughfare south of Gibsonton Drive, which intersects with Interstate Highway 75 to the east of town. It is primarily a two lane residential road. The Gibsonton shopping area is located primarily on Gibsonton Drive east of US Highway 41. The crossing at Nundy Avenue is presently guarded by cantilever flashing lights. These lights are scheduled to be upgraded to flashing lights and gates sometime during 1997. The average daily traffic count on Nundy Avenue is 2,948 vehicles, including 21 school busses. Nundy Avenue is rated for 5,000 vehicles per day. It can handle without difficulty any through traffic diverted from Mottie Road by virtue of the proposed closing of the crossing. Petitioners object to the closing of the Mottie Road crossing for several reasons, the primary of which is safety. According to Operation Life Saver, a non-profit organization, eighty percent of car/train accidents are due to driver error - stupidly driving across the tracks. Mr. Johnson, a member of the Petitioner and its spokesman at the hearing, contends that closure of the Mottie Road crossing will stop the crossings but it will also increase traffic at other crossings which will increase driver frustration. Mr. Johnson notes that the wreck of a 100 car train at the crossing at Pennsylvania Street, just south of the Alafia River not far north of town, would block traffic down through the Nundy Avenue crossing, but would not block the Mottie Road crossing. In the event Mottie Road were closed, however, that same wreck would cause an increase in emergency response time by eight to ten minutes. This could result in elderly people residing on Mottie Road who need life support having no way to get out in the event Roosevelt Road were also blocked by an accident. The likelihood of this combination of events is remote. The closest emergency medical service facility is located at the fire station on Gibsonton Drive. If that one was blocked due to a closing of Mottie and Roosevelt, the next closest facility is in Riverview, north of the Alafia River, or at Apollo Beach, six or seven miles south on US Highway 41. Mr. Johnson contends that safety is not the real reason CSX wants to close the crossing at Mottie Road. He claims the purpose is to save CSX money. No evidence was produced to support that contention however. Mr. Johnson also questions the accuracy of the traffic counts and the other statistics weighed by the Department in its evaluation of the application. The crossings were evaluated in the summer months when the population of Gibsonton is approximately 7,000 people. In the winter months of December through early March, the population doubles to almost 14,000 people, he claims. A large segment of this increase is due to the winter influx of carnival people who have large trucks and show equipment which requires a larger turning radius than a semi-trailer. As many as thirty large rigs come and go in that area each season. He asserts that Nundy Avenue is dangerous for trucks to use because the ditch banks beside the road are narrow and deep. Turning onto Mottie Road is easy. Turning onto Nundy Avenue is not. Again, no evidence was presented in support of this contention. Another objection to the closing of Mottie Road is raised by Robert A. Wood, a senior deacon at the neighborhood church. He contends that the closing will interfere with business in the church located at the corner of Church Street and Payne Avenue, currently accessible to a large portion of the congregation who come to church through Mottie Road. Echoing the concern of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wood cites the occurrence of an accident at Nundy Avenue and Roosevelt Road, and contends that such an accident would make it impossible for people to get out if Mottie Road were blocked. Mr. Wood also notes that the railroad bridge over the Alafia River is low and is opened three or four times a day. When trains are stopped south of the bridge because of this, they block all crossings north of Mottie Road. Mr. Wood opines that Nundy Avenue could not handle the extra traffic caused by the closure of Mottie Road without substantial additional modification of its intersection with US Highway 41. Though Mr. Wood is a retired engineer, he has no expertise in traffic management, and his opinions are based primarily on common sense as opposed to engineering practice. A substantial wave of objection to the closure by the residents in the area has been reduced to writing and submitted to the Department and to CSX though it was not presented at hearing. According to Mrs. Martha J. Johnson, vice-president of Concerned Citizens, these concerns were memorialized and furnished to Mr. Webb who was the Department’s point man at the time. Whereas the Department has been responsive, however, the railroad has not. Ms. Johnson is of the opinion that had CSX been more responsive to the community’s expressed concerns, the matter could have been discussed and resolved in an alternative manner. The controversy has come about because of CSX’s attempts to conform to the goals of the Federal Railroad Administration’s stated goal of closing twenty-five percent of all at-grade crossings by the year 2,000. In 1973, the federal Highway Safety Act emphasized crossing accidents and mandated the identification of hazardous crossings to be corrected or closed. The Act provided money to the states to fix or close these crossings, but these funds are not unlimited. From 1973 to the mid-1990’s the fatality rate dropped by fifty percent as a result of these efforts, but now appears to have leveled off. This has led to the conclusion that lights and gates are not the whole answer. Crossings have to be converted to overpasses or closed. Mottie Road is not active enough a road to justify an overpass, and in addition, the physical layout of the area will not support an overpass. As a result, the logical solution is closure. A legislative study done in 1994 revealed that there is an excessive number of crossings and recommended closing some of them. The instant closing proposal is a part of that effort. It costs the railroad approximately $800 per year to maintain this crossing. If signals were installed, (flashing lights), the yearly maintenance cost would increase to $1,500, and the installation of the lights and gates would cost an initial $100,000 to 150,000. Mr. Wollenzein, the railroad’s public projects engineer, looks at several hundred crossings per year from the standpoint of number of vehicles, speed of vehicles, type of vehicles, train traffic, train speed and the distance of one crossing to the next closest crossing. In the instant case, the vehicular traffic amounts to slightly under 500 vehicles per day, and there are five trains per day through the crossing each way. Trains are limited to a maximum speed of 40 mph through the crossings. In Mr. Wollenzein’s opinion, safety of rail and vehicular traffic would be enhanced if this crossing were closed. Closure would be the absolute prohibition of traffic through the crossing and without traffic, there can be no accidents. He drove the area and concluded there were several practical alternative routes which would compensate for the closing of the Mottie Road crossing. Though he cannot be certain closure would not interfere with emergency vehicle service, he does not believe it would. The fire department is located on Gibsonton Drive, east of US 41, co-existing with the EMS facility. Support for the closing also comes from Jack Webb, formerly with the Department and now a transportation engineer employed by the Texas Transportation Institute. Ninety percent of his work deals with railroads and crossing devices, tying those signals into the traffic system. Mr. Webb looked at the Mottie Road crossing site on several occasions, the first time being in September 1995 when some Department employees were evaluating potential closure sites. The Department decision to permit closure was made only after a thorough study of the site and public hearings to afford the public an opportunity to submit matters relating to the proposed action. When the Department contemplates closing an existing crossing, it considers alternate access, traffic, warning devices and the like. Based on the information he was able to gather on this crossing, Mr. Webb concluded there was a viable alternative to the crossing at Mottie Road; the one at Nundy Avenue. The Mottie Road crossing is a timber crossing which is in fair condition. There was no significant rust on the rails nor cracking of the timbers. There was, however, some minor cracking with wear on the timbers. Nundy Avenue, he opines, can handle from four to five thousand vehicles per day, and in his opinion, closing Mottie Road would not overtax Nundy Avenue. Mr. Webb also calculated the additional response times which would be occasioned by closing Mottie Road. According to his figures, EMS support from the Gibsonton Drive fire station would come off Nundy Avenue. Police response time to a critical point on US Highway 41 just east of the crossing on Mottie Road was 1.5 additional minutes from the south, and 45 seconds from the north. A critical point is that point in the neighborhood where additional response time would be the longest. Mr. Webb also checked with EMS, the fire department and the police about response times. The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department estimated that closure of the Mottie Road crossing might slow up their response times slightly from the south but not when coming from other directions. A fire department official opined that additional response time from the Gibsonton and Riverview stations would be nil, and that there would be an additional three to four minutes to come from Summerfield. EMS officials at the Gibsonton station indicated closure would have no impact upon their operation. The EMS official at the central dispatch office indicated the potential for detriment to their operations would be low even from the other stations. Mottie Road is not on a school bus route and bus transportation was not likely to be affected. At the public hearing on this matter some objections were voiced. As a result, the Department reevaluated all 3 crossings proposed for closing. On two of the three, valid arguments against closure were propounded, but neither related to Mottie Road. In the case of Mottie Road, the railroad agreed to construct a pedestrian crossing there even if the vehicle crossing were closed. The Department also considered the issue of turning radii for trucks as encouraged by the public comment. After visiting the site on several different occasions, and measuring the turning radius availability for trucks with fifty feet between axles, Department officials identified but one problem area located at the intersection of Nundy Avenue and Roosevelt Road, and as a result, indicated that the Department would widen the road there to accommodate the trucks’ turning radii without the need to acquire additional property. The Department also found that there is a shopping center on US Highway 41 about one-half mile south of Mottie Road. The Post office is located there as well, but closing Mottie Road would not have any major impact on access to that facility. Based on all the above, Mr. Webb concluded that closure was appropriate. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order granting permission to CSX Transportation, Inc., to close the at grade vehicular crossing over its track at Mottie Road in Gibsonton, subject to the railroad’s agreement to maintain a pedestrian crossing there and to upgrade the vehicular crossing at Nundy Avenue. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert S. Johnson Qualified Representative Jeanie Johnson Second Vice President Concerned Citizens of Gibsonton Area, Inc. Post Office Box 1304 Gibsonton, Florida 33534 Steven H. Shook, Esquire CSX Transportation, Inc. Law Department, J - 150 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Station Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Attention: Diedre Grubbs Mail Street 58 605 Suwannee Street, Suite 535 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation should issue a permit for the installation of a railroad crossing on "Citrus Drive Extension," Marion County, Florida, to intersect the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad at a point located approximately 1720 feet northwest of Seaboard Coast Line Mile Post 730.
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony of witnesses for the Petitioner and Respondents and the arguments of the respective counsel on the issues and considering the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner, Marion County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, duly authorized to establish and maintain county roads within the boundaries of Marion County, Florida. Marion County has heretofore filed a Petition with the Department of Transportation of the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 338.21, Florida Statutes, for permission to establish a graded railroad crossing for Citrus Drive Extension, a county road, proposed to intersect the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracks approximately 1,720 feet N.W. of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Mile Post 730. Marion County for a number of years prior to these proceedings has contemplated and endeavored to establish a county road herein referred to as Citrus Drive Extension, a proposed main arterial county road running north and south within Marion County, Florida, for the purposes of connecting existing county and state roads and thereby alleviating traffic on other county and state roads within the vicinity. Citrus Drive Extension would serve that portion of the county which said county expects in the near future to experience rapid development and substantial increase in population. Marion County heretofore has acquired all necessary right-of-way for the establishment of Citrus Drive Extension and a portion of that said right-of- way, that portion being approximately 6,234 feet, acquired from GAC Properties, Inc., by means of Right-Of-Way Deed, contains a reversionary clause which provides that if Citrus Drive Extension is not completed by June 18, 1979, that acquired right-of-way from GAC Properties, Inc., will revert back to Grantor. Citrus Drive Extension as it approaches the proposed railroad crossing from the south to the north contains a curve to the south of the said Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracks which said curve has a centerline radius of 462 feet and has a central angle of curvature 73 degrees 8 feet 56 inches. That railroad traffic on the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracks where the proposed road grade crossing is to be located consists of 16 trains per day with a maximum of 79 miles per hour. The Petition heretofore filed by Marion County for the proposed railroad grade crossing does not contain any provisions for railroad warning devices. The alignment of the road south of the crossing is a north-south road. Near the crossing the road goes into a curve and the crossing is located in a reverse curve, the curve from the south being a relatively sharp curve.
The Issue The granting or denial of permits to open and to close public at-grade railroad crossings as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, 1973.
Findings Of Fact The petitioner is in the process of constructing a major vehicular traffic facility linking U.S. Highways 17 and 92 with Interstate Highway 4. All administrative and legal prerequisites for the project have been accomplished and sanctioned by court order. The project, as designed, requires a realignment of Greenwood Road. It also requires the closing of an existing artery in this portion of Collier County and at present it dead-ends at Goodlette Road. The county's long-range road plans provide for expanding State Road 951A to the west to join U.S. 41, or to connect with a road in the city that would join U.S. 41. Pending the acquisition by the city of the right to cross the railroad track, the county has not obtained any rights-of-way that will be required to connect the proposed Coastland Boulevard with SR 951A from its intersection with Goodlette Road. In Exhibit 2 the connection of these two arteries is indicated in the yellow area on the map, which shows Coastland Boulevard crossing Goodlette Road, and extending in an inverted curve northward to join SR 951A. In the absence of the actual acquisition of the rights-of-way, however, the portion indicated on Exhibit 2 east of Goodlette Road is a general proposal rather than a specific indication of where the road will be placed. The proposed rail grade crossing insofar as the city is concerned and without considering any further action by the county, would result in a road that would cross the railroad track and dead-end on a north-south artery road. Some 700 feet to the north is SR 951A, which presently dead-ends at the eastern right-of-way of Goodlette Road. Some 200 feet to the north of SR 951A and leading to the westward of Goodlette Road is 22nd Avenue North, which also dead- ends at Goodlette Road. Without further action by Collier County to extend the proposed Coastland Boulevard across Goodlette Road there would be three T- intersections on Goodlette Road within a span of less than 1,000 feet. From the foregoing it is concluded that there is an urgent need for the proposed new boulevard and a grade crossing over the Seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks. It is further concluded, however, that to allow this crossing without extending the proposed Coastland Boulevard to the east of Goodlette Road would not be in the best interest of the safety of vehicular traffic in Use area concerned. It is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the petition of City of Naples, Florida to install a railroad grade crossing in the vicinity of the proposed Coastland Boulevard and 603 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company mile post AX999 in Naples, Florida be approved subject to Collier County taking official action to extend Coastland Boulevard eastward of Goodlette Road. It is further RECOMMENDED that final approval of this grade crossing be withheld until such time as the City of Naples and Collier County submit to the Department evidence that the necessary rights-of-way have been acquired and money has been appropriated for the construction of that portion of Coastland Boulevard east of Goodlette Road. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of September, 1975 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julian Clarkson, Esquire Philip Bennett, Esquire General Counsel's Office Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether a railroad crossing located at Florida East Coast Line Railroad Mile Post 175.49 should be closed.
Findings Of Fact The City of Rockledge, Florida is constructing a road in the incorporated limits of the city, known as Rovac Parkway. The road has not been completed, but when completed, it will consist of two ten foot driving lanes running east and two ten foot driving lanes running west with a twelve foot median strip and fourteen foot shoulders. This road is scheduled to intersect the Florida East Coast Line Railroad at Mile Post 175.57, and would cross the railroad with the same given dimensions as described above. After crossing the railroad, the Rovac Parkway would intersect with U.S. 1, also known as State Road 5. There is pending with the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, an application far driveway permit from the Rovac Parkway into U.S.1 (State Road 5), and a copy of the application for permit is found in the City's Exhibit #4 entered into evidence in this hearing. The area for which the application for at-grade crossing pertains is zoned R-2. In the general area of the proposed crossing it is intended that a industrial plant be built by Rovac, Inc., a firm from Maitland, Florida. The Florida East Coast Line Railroad which runs through the City of Rockledge is a single track line which runs roughly north and south and 66 percent of the population of the City of Rockledge, is located west of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad, with the remaining 34 percent found east of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad. The population in the City of Rockledge at the time of the hearing was 11,467 people. If the subject railroad crossing was open and the Rovac Parkway completed, approximately 35 percent of the 66 percent of the population lying west of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad would be using the at-grade crossing. The nearest at-grade crossing with signalization is found 1/2 mile north of the proposed crossing at Barton Road, and the implementation of an at-grade crossing at the subject location would releave the traffic at Barton Road and promote safe crossing of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad found in the City of Rockledge. Immediately north of the proposed at-grade cressing and identified as Nile Post 175.49 is an unprotected at-grade crossing. This crossing services a roofing company which services the public and also services a number of homes in the immediate vicinity of the existing crossing. If the new at-grade crossing at Mile Post 175.57 were permitted, the people who utilize the crossing at Mile Post 175.49 would be serviced by the new crossing. This service would be affected by an extension of an existing road known as Edwards Drive, from its present location to intersect with Rovac Parkway at right angles immediately west of the intersection of the proposed crossing with the Florida East Coast Line Railroad. The land that is necessary for the extension of Edwards Drive has been deeded to the City of Rockledge but has not been dedicated, A and public hearings have been held on the question of the service of those persons in the vicinity at the present at-grade crossing, in addition to public hearings on the extension of Edwards Drive. The location of the proposed crossing and the existing crossing at Mile Post 175.49, and their relationship to other landmarks in the area can be seen through the City's Exhibit #13, admitted into evidence. At the time of hearing, eight north and south bound freight trains and two local freight trains operated in the vicinity of the present crossing at Mile Post 175.49 and the contemplated crossing at Mile Post 175.57. The time schedule for the northbound freight trains is 3:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 5:00 A.M., 9:00 A.M., 2:00 P.M., 3:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. The time schedule for the south bound freight trains is 10:45 A.M., 3:45 P.M., 7:00 P.M., 8:00 P.M. 9:00 P.M., 10:45 P.M., 11:45 P.M. and 6:30 A.M. The two local freight trains run at approximately 4:00 A.M. and 12:00 noon. The speed limit in the area of the crossing at Mile Post 175.49 and the proposed crossing at Mile Post 175.57 is 60 WH for the railroad. There is a left curve approximately 1,550 feet south of the proposed crossing. All parties to the hearing feel that it is necessary to have signalization at the proposed at-grade crossing. The witness for the City acknowledged the need for such an arrangement. The spokesman for the Railroad felt that the crossing should be controlled by an automatic system with flashing lights, ringing bells, and gates, which was train activated, and the witness of the Department of Transportation felt that the safety equipment at the proposed at-grade crossing should be a Type IV, with cantilevered flashing lights, ringing bells and gates. The some witnesses stressed that the existing crossing at Mile Post 175.49 was not signalized and therefore was much more dangerous than a signalized crossing, such as the proposed crossing at Mile Post 175.57. Exhibits which were offered in the course of the bearing which address the propriety of opening a crossing at Mile Post 175.57 and closing the crossing at Mile Post 175.49 were as follows: Exhibit #1, by the City, is a map of the City of Rockledge; Exhibit #2, by the City, is a comprehensive land use plan of the City; Exhibit #3, by the City, is a resolution of the City Council, City of Rockledge, proposing the opening of the crossing at Mile Post 175.57; Exhibit #6, by the City, a traffic count at the Barton crossing; Exhibit #11, by the City, a resolution of the Brevard Economic Development Commission concerning the impact of such a development; and Exhibit #12, by the City, a drawing of the extension of Edwards Drive and the construction of the Rovac Parkway, together with the present crossing and the proposed crossing.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application for closing the Florida East Coast Line Railroad crossing at Mile Post 175.49 be granted, contingent upon the opening of a signalized railroad crossing at Florida East Coast Line Railroad Mile Post 175.57. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Walter C. Sheppard, Esquire City Attorney, for Rockledge 115 Harrison Street Cocoa, Florida 32922 Charles B. Evans, Esquire Florida East Coast Line Railroad One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Philip Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operation Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted for an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Post AX-973, 480 feet south of said mile post.
Findings Of Fact There is being constructed in Lee County, Florida, a roadway known as the Six Mile Parkway and also known as the Ortiz Loop Road. This roadway is a four lane divided highway with two 24 foot sections separated by a 40 foot median strip constituted of grass. The speed limit at the proposed railroad crossing is 55 mph. The average daily traffic is estimated to be 6,000 cars by the year 1978 and 18,000 cars by the year 1985. The railroad is a single tract facility, which carries three trains per week and six trips. These trains are freight trains with a speed limit of 35 mph at the proposed crossing. The trains average 30 cars per train, and primarily haul limerock and "stump wood". If a local mine, which is in operation, should increase production, the average number of trips per week could increase to 10 trains. Trains that travel on this track at this time, travel between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., on a daily basis, but are not more particularly scheduled. It is contemplated that the cost of the installation of the railroad crossing with safety devices and the maintenance of this railroad crossing is to be paid for by Lee County, Florida. Lee County, through their expert witness, John Walter Ebner, P.E., testified that they would propose a type II, grade crossing with four lanes, the same width as the highway, with the identical pavement and a grass median of similar width as the highway. The safety device proposed by the applicant, Lee County, Florida, is a train activated flashing lights and bells device with cantilevered signalization. The Applicant does not feel control gates would be necessary at the present, considering the traffic volume of automobiles and trains. The Department of Transportation and the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad agree with the proposal of the Applicant, with the exception of feeling that automatic train gates should be installed from the inception of the construction of the railroad crossing. The Applicant is additionally concerned about the economics of the installation of a train activated device with automatic train gates. The concern is that the cost will be an additional $20,000 above their recommended safety device. The official statement of agreement to the construction of the at-grade crossing is found in the Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida which was offered as an exhibit by the Applicant in the course of the hearing. That exhibit is Applicant's Exhibit #1. There was no offering of testimony or further statement by members of the general public or other parties.
Recommendation It is recommended that the permit be granted, to open the subject crossing, utilizing the safety equipment proposed by the Applicant, with the addition of the installation of automatic gates. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operation Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James T. Humphrey, Esquire Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Marvin R. Herring Train Master Seaboard Coastline Railroad 1102 New Tampa Highway Lakeland, Florida 33801
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
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.
Recommendation It is recommended that the permit be granted and that the crossing be opened subject to the type of crossing protection equipment agreed on by the parties DONE and ORDERED this 23 day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Humes, Jr., Attorney Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Ralph B. Wilson, Attorney St. Lucie County Post Office Box 700 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 George L. Waas, Attorney Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Granting or denial of a permit to open a public at-grade railroad crossing as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners desired to be granted a permit for the opening of a public at-grade railroad crossing in connection with the construction of a new four-lane vehicular facility. The alignment of the facility was determined after several alternate studies had been made. Its purpose is to provide a means to move traffic from the Pensacola Bay Bridge through the historical district of Pensacola and on to the west side of the City near Barrancas Avenue. To utilize this alignment, it is necessary to cross a spur track of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. Safety studies conducted on the basis of accepted safety criterion reveal that the installation and maintenance of automatically-operated cantilevered flashing lights and gates in addition to standard pavement markings, crossbucks and discs would be necessary to protect the safety of both rail and vehicular traffic. The Petitioners agreed to bear the expenses of the installation of such signalization. The permit should be granted.
Recommendation The permit shall be granted for the opening of the subject crossing conditioned upon the installation and maintenance of signalization as set forth in the facts. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 G. S. Burleson, Sr. Asst. State Utility Engr. (RRs) Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 M. H. Smith, Esquire Attorney for Louisville-Nashville Railroad Company P. O. Box 1198 Louisville, Ky. 40201 County Attorney Escambia County County Courthouse Pensacola, Florida
