The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing by new roadway construction at the intersection of Berryhill Road and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad SYA 877-1610' South, Pasco County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail/ highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Robert K. Reese of Pasco County, County Commission District IV, Florida. The crossing location is in the municipality of Holiday. The local popular name of the street or roadway is Berryhill Roadway. The crossing is across the tracks of the Seaboard Coast Line railroad. The railroad mile post distance and direction is SYA 877-1610' south. The crossing would serve a subdivision known as Forest Hills East. The only entrance into the Forest Hills East Subdivision is a crossing by way of Elizabeth Avenue. This crossing is unsignalized and requires vehicular traffic to cross two spur line railroad tracks. There is a third possible entrance into the subdivision through a crossing known as Tumbleweeds but this entrance is undeveloped and is not now being utilized. The Forest Hills East Subdivision projects 250 single family dwellings in the development. There are no current plans to build condominium or apartment structures. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad previously approved water and sewer crossings underneath the railroad tracks at the Berryhill proposed crossing. There are deceleration and acceleration lanes and paving on the state road S-595 which leads up to the subdivision. There is an estimated three trains per week which would utilize the crossing and there is an unobstructed field of view from the center of the railroad track 1500 feet to the south and 700 feet to the north. On the proposed crossing proceeding in the western direction there is am available visibility of 89 feet south and 120 feet north with a train proceeding at 15 miles per hour. After public hearing in 1974 involving this same proposed crossing in which Dreher Construction Company, the developer of the subdivision, was the applicant, the Respondent, Department of Transportation, directed an issuance of the permit finding need but the issuance of the permit was conditioned upon the installation and maintenance of automatically operated signals consisting of flashing lights and ringing bells at the proposed crossing as the required safety measure. No permit was granted. The roadway has been built and access to the subdivision across the tracks is now complete except for signalization. Because of no signalization the entrance is now blocked for ingress or egress although at least two new homes have been constructed in the subdivision. The cost of the installation of the signalization which had been recommended by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, in 1974 and is still recommended, is between $30,000 and $40,000 with additional maintenance costs. The cost of the signalization of wooden cross bucks, stop signs and speed bumps with minimal maintenance costs is obviously much less although no evidence was submitted as to actual cost. The present applicant for the Berryhill crossing, the Pasco County Commission, District IV, represented by its Transportation-chairman Robert K. Reese requests that the permit for the proposed Berryhill crossing be granted without the requirement that electronic signalization be required. A need was cited for an additional crossing to serve the residents of the subdivision in addition to normal travel. Additional needs were cited by the fire department and hospital emergency vehicles. It was noted that many of the residents are retirees and that at times the one existing crossing is blocked by trains across the track. The applicant states that it is unwilling to expend county monies for the recommended electronic signalization. The developer of the subdivision is unwilling to install and maintain the electronic signalization. A large number of the residents of the subdivision want the proposed crossing opened immediately and at the hearing indicated that they felt that the roadside flashing lights were unnecessary and that they thought the cross buck and stop signs were all that is necessary. From a personal viewing of the Forest Hills East Subdivision and the crossing available to the residents therein, together with the evidence submitted, the testimony of parties who have substantial interest in the proposed crossing and after listening to the oral arguments of counsels at the hearing and the briefs submitted thereafter, the Hearing Officer further finds: There is an undisputed need for a crossing in addition to the present crossing to serve the subdivision. The present crossing is less safe than the proposed railroad crossing would be although both crossings are needed to serve the subdivision. The normal number of trains trafficking at the proposed Berryhill crossing is three times a week with a maximum scheduled speed of the train at 20 miles per hour. The crossing is needed and signalization of wooden cross arms and stop signs and speed zones would serve the public interest adequately although manual flagging of the train and the installation of flashing lights and ringing bells might be required at a future time. The need to the subdivision and the residents therein would be better served by opening the proposed Berryhill crossing inasmuch as it would give two entrances into the subdivision.
Recommendation Grant the permit for a period of one (1) year with wooden cross arms, a stop sign and traffic bumps as signalization and safety measures. Reevaluate after one year from date hereof. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. James Parker, Esquire Delzer, Edwards, Martin, Coulter & Parker Post Office Box 279 Port Richey, Florida 33568 Jeffrey H. Savlov, Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coast Lime Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 =================================================================
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 there should be an opening of a public at grade rail-highway crossing by new roadway construction at Everglades Boulevard-State Road 710- Section 91000-6604, Okeechobee County Parcel 1 (right of way XSO-8).
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail-highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Okeechobee County through its agent Moseley Collins, P. E., County Engineer. The crossing location is southeast of the city of Okeechobee, Florida. The local popular name of the street is Everglades Boulevard. The proposed crossing is across the tracks of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad at Seaboard Coastline milepost 911.93. The crossing would serve a growing subdivision approximately three (3) miles wide and nine (9) miles long, an area in which approximately 3,000 people live. There is one entrance to the subdivision across Highway 441 South. There is a second grade crossing signalized with crossbucks known as the Hazellieff Road crossing. This crossing does not serve the subject subdivision inasmuch as the road dead-ends after crossing the railroad. There are no current plans to buy up the right of way and extend the road at the Hazellieff crossing. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad would prefer that the Applicant extend the road to serve the subject subdivision. The Hazellieff crossing is approximately one-half mile from the proposed crossing, but the Applicant states that the crossing serves only a few families and the Applicant does not own the right of way across the muck-pitted area and has no plans to extend the road that crosses the railroad at Hazellieff crossing. There is an estimated average daily traffic count of 2,000 cars per day which would use the proposed crossing. There are six passenger train movements every twenty-four hours on the railroad at those crossings. There are six through freights every twenty-four hours and four local freights every twenty- four hours, plus additional extra trains as needed. The speeds range up to 79 miles per hour for passenger trains and 60 miles per hour for freight trains. The passenger trans are the AMTRAK trains. A need has been established for another opening across the railroad because of the long and circuitous route that must be traveled to enter the subdivision. In the event of a storm, there is an additional hazard to the road because of two bridges that must be crossed. The proposed opening would decrease greatly the mileage to be traveled to fire or hospital. The parties agreed that the proper signalization for the proposed crossing would be automatic crossing gates, flashing lights and ringing bells. The Applicant contends that an opening is needed to serve the growing subdivision known as Treasure Island; that the existing crossing is insufficient as far as the safety of the community is concerned and requires a much longer way to be traveled by the residents of the subdivision. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad contends that the existing public opening should be used and right of way bought by the county so that there would not be an additional crossing of the tracks. AMTRAK contends that there should be no new openings across the tracks where the passenger trains attain high speeds unless there is a great need and a study made to see if there cannot be a closing to balance the opening across the tracks. Florida Department of Transportation contends that a need has been established for the crossing and that the parties have agreed that lights, bells and gates are the needed signalization. The Hearing Officer further finds: That a need has been established by the Applicant. That proper signalization includes flashing lights, ringing bells and gates.
Recommendation Grant permit, providing there is a clearance from the Safety Engineer as to the visibility problem pointed out by the Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Daniel H. Brunner, Esquire 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Southwest Washington, D. C. 20024 W. L. Hendry, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1337 Okeechobee, Florida Jack J. Vereen, Jr. Assistant Division Engineer 2206 N. W. 7th Avenue Miami, Florida 33127 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 =================================================================
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.
Findings Of Fact Transportation plans for Broward County made as long ago as 1965 provide for roads crossing the SCL tracks at N. W. 48th Street in Broward County and at S. W. 10th Street in Deerfield Beach. Both of these routes are now planned as principal E-W arteries providing four lanes of traffic. Rights of way for these routes both east and west of the SCL tracks have been acquired by the City of Deerfield Beach and by Broward County. Approaches for both of these arteries over the recently completed I-95 running just east of the railroad tracks have also been completed. Two crossings presently provide access from east of the tracks to the area here involved west of the tracks, one at SR 810 to the north and the other at Sample Road some 3 1/2 miles to the south. S. W. 10th Street in Deerfield Beach is just under one mile south of SR 810 also in Deerfield Beach, and N. W. 48th Street is outside the incorporated area of Deerfield Beach one mile south of S. W. 10th Street. The population of Deerfield Beach is approximately 31,000 and some 6,000 persons reside west of the SCL tracks. The largest development in Deerfield Beach west of the tracks is Century Village located south of and adjacent to SR 810. The only entry to and access from Century Village is via SR 810. In the event the crossing at SR 810 is blocked emergency access to Century Village and other areas west of the SCL tracks is via Sample Road or via the next crossing to the north in Palm Beach County some five miles north of SR 810. Fire protection for the unincorporated area of Broward County in the vicinity of N. W. 48th Street west of the SCL tracks is provided from the fire station approximately one mile east of the SCL tracks near SR 810 and US 1 in Deerfield Beach. To reach that area it is necessary to cross the tracks at SR 810, proceed west to Powerline Road, south to Sample Road, east to N. W. 9th Avenue, and north to the area. A similar route would have to be followed by other emergency vehicles either police or medical. Substantial growth of the area immediately west of the SCL tracks between SR 810 and Sample Road has occurred and developments are currently underway to provide numerous homesites, principally trailer park facilities, in this area. Sample Road has been widened to 6 lanes and is estimated to be 300 percent overcapacity if all land use plans predicated for the area are developed. Additional E-W arterial transportation routes are needed. SCL presently has a passing track or siding at the proposed S. W. 10th Street crossing. This siding is 5700 feet long and can accommodate 96 cars. Three-fourths of this track lies north of S. W. 10th Street and approximately 71 cars could be accommodated, on the portion of the siding north of S. W. 10th Street. This 5700 foot section of track is adjacent and parallel to the main track which presently carries 6 passenger and 6 freight trains per day plus approximately 2 switch trains per day. It is used to drop off cars for later pickup, for allowing north and southbound trains to pass, or for a passenger train to pass a freight train. Exhibit 16 was stipulated into evidence to show typical activity at this 5700 foot Deerfield Beach siding. During the period February 22, 1976 to April 13, 1976 the largest number of cars held on this siding at any one time was 68. Similar sidings (generally with greater capacity) exist at various places alongside SCL tracks. The cost of providing a grade separation crossing at the SCL tracks at either N. W. 48th Street or S. W. 10th Street is approximately one million dollars. While such a crossing would obviously be safer than a grade crossing, the cost to benefit ratio for the grade crossing over the grade separation crossing is 4.52 at 48th Street and more than 3 at S. W. 10th Street. The safety index for both of the proposed grade crossings with active safety warning devices is in the range of acceptability - each showing an accident probability of one every 11 years. Annual cost of the signals and warning devices to be installed on the grade crossing is some $21,000 a year while the cost of a grade separation structure is some $63,000 a year. Providing grade separation at S. W. 10th Street would necessitate the approach on the east of the track starting at about the same place the approach on the west side of I-95 starts, thereby effectively blocking any N-S access to S. W. 10th Street between I-95 and the SCL tracks. Although Exhibit 17 was not admitted into evidence one witness testified that the figures thereon, showing the cost of relocating the 5700 feet of siding at Deerfield Beach, were on the conservative side and would probably cost more. However, no evidence was presented that an at-grade crossing would render this siding useless for the purposes intended nor was any evidence offered to show that the value of this siding to SCL would be materially reduced by an at-grade crossing at S. W. 10th Street.
Findings Of Fact The railroad crossing which is the subject of this proceeding is crossing number 272859-B, in the City of Florida City, Florida. Its location at N.W. 14th Street is approximately 700 feet north of an existing crossing located at Lucy Street, and roughly 1900 feet south of a present crossing located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway. The Railway's rationale for closing the N.W. 14th Street crossing is that these other two nearby crossings offer practical alternate routes to the N.W. 14th Street crossing, and can provide public access and emergency services to the area. The City's opposition is based on its contention that closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing would affect emergency access to the area. The principal justification for the closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing is its proximity to the other crossings located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway and Lucy Street, and the resulting improvement in safety for vehicular traffic and railroad equipment. Removal of the subject crossing would eliminate vehicular accidents on the tracks, and eliminate upkeep and maintenance expenses caused by frequent vandalism at the N.W 14th Street crossing location. In addition, closure would eliminate the need to sound the train whistle at the N.W. 14th Street crossing which is located near a residential housing area. The Railway receives an average of two calls per week to report incidents of vandalism in the area of the N.W. 14th street crossing. This number of calls is above average compared to other crossings in the area. Moreover, closure of the subject crossing would permit the relocation of the signal devices now in use there to one of forty-four other crossings in or near Florida City. The traffic count taken in the vicinity of N.W. 14th Street, which is a local service road providing access to a single neighborhood, showed that about 600 vehicles per day use the crossing. Traffic counts taken at Lucy Street, a through street which provides service beyond any specific residential area, resulted in approximately 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day. The Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway crossings have sufficient capability to handle all traffic diverted to them if the 14th Street crossing should be closed. The N.W. 14th Street crossing also allows outside traffic to enter the residential area, contrary to good urban planning. By removal of the crossing, such through traffic would be eliminated. The alternate crossings at Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis parkway provide reasonable alternate routes, and removal of the subject crossing will not unduly inhibit access by emergency vehicles into the affected area. Although 75 percent of the calls the Florida City police receive originate from Cuban village, a heavily populated area surrounding N.W. 14th Street, if the subject crossing were closed, Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway could be used to respond to emergency police calls in the Cuban Village. Therefore, alternate routes are available for emergency access to the affected area. In addition, from a pedestrian safety standpoint, there is sufficient space along Lucy Street to allow pedestrians to walk there without being affected by vehicular traffic.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida East Coast Railway Company to close the at-grade railroad crossing at N.W. 14th Street in Florida City, Florida, be granted. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 15 day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15 day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Evans, Esquire One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Thomas Tomassi, Esquire 137 N.W. 10th Street Homestead, Florida 33030 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted to open a public at-grade rail highway crossing of the Florida East Coast Railway Company track at West Avenue "A" (Railway Mile Post K-61 + 4361'), in the City of Belle Glade, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The City Commission of the City of Belle Glade, Florida, prior to July 1, 1972, determined that it needed a grade level crossing on West Avenue "A" across the Florida East Coast Railway tracks. Thereafter on April 19, 1977 it submitted an application to the Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, through its City Manager, Robert R. Sanders for the railroad grade crossing. The type of rail line existing is single track; the number of trains per day from November to May is 11, and from May to November is 2, and the speed of trains is 35 mph. The proposal is for a grade level crossing two- lane road. The cost of signal installation and the cost of annual maintenance is to be charged to the Petitioner. The railroad creates a dividing barrier separating the eastern part of the city from the western part of the city; a canal separates the southern part of the city from the northern part of the city. South of the canal there are three street level crossings across the railroad, of which the northernmost is the canal. The next one to the south lies approximately 600' south at Northwest Avenue "D". The third lies approximately 2800' south of Avenue "D" crossing. The proposed crossing is approximately 1,600' north of the southernmost Avenue "E" crossing and approximately 1,200' south of the Avenue "D" crossing. The area lying immediately west of the Avenue "D" crossing is primarily residential. West Canal Street and Avenue "E" carry the bulk of the traffic from east and west and from west to east lying south of the canal. The proposed crossing would provide an additional access from east to west lying south of the canal. The opening of a West Avenue "A" crossing would take some of the traffic from the crossing at Southwest Avenue The site for the proposed crossing is located along a curve of the railroad track and there are some sight problems because of the curve and because of vegetation. There are two at-grade crossings north of the canal. The police station is located on West Avenue "A" in the center of town east of the proposed crossing site. The fire department is located on Southwest Avenue "E", both of which provide emergency services to the high density area of the city without the use of a railroad crossing. The response time to the high density area is a matter of minutes for both the fire department and police department. Some response time could be saved to the affected area by the installation of the proposed crossing, but the time saving is under four minutes. No evidence was submitted as to the average number of police and fire calls from the affected area and there was no projection as to the average daily traffic across the proposed crossing.
Recommendation Deny the permit. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: John E. Baker, Esquire City of Belle Glade 257 Southeast Avenue E Belle Glade, Florida 33430 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Humes, Jr., Esquire Florida East Coast Railway Co. One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084
The Issue The parties stipulated that the denial of the proposed crossing was based solely upon the type of signal or warning devices the applicant had proposed to install. The issue presented is limited to the type of warning or signaling devices which should be installed at the proposed crossing.
Findings Of Fact The proposed crossing would be created by the extension of Thomas Road over the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. Thomas Road runs northeast at approximately a 90-degree angle off the road known as Old 41 or Old Tamiami Trail, and its extension would cross the railroad approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Old 41. The Thomas Road/Old 41 intersection is located one-quarter mile southeast from the dead end of Old 41 in Lee County. Old 41 and Thomas Road are improved two-lane roads. Old 41 runs southeast for several miles and intersects US Highway 41. The extension of Thomas Road would terminate shortly after crossing the entrances to two proposed industrial parks. The proposed crossing will be the sole access to the 22-acre tract zoned for the heaviest industrial use permitted by Lee County. The tract has been sold in two sections of approximately equal size. The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad at the point of the proposed crossing consists of a mainline track and a spur, or storage track, which run parallel to Old 41 at the site of the proposed crossing. The mainline track runs from Tampa to Naples through the Fort Myers area in which the crossing will be located. The storage track runs 690 feet to the north of the proposed crossing and 1,400 feet to the south of the proposed crossing. The mainline track carries one train per day, and a speed limit of 35 miles per hour is imposed upon mainline traffic. The one train using the mainline track drops cars off onto and picks cars up from the storage track. These switching movements could entail multiple movements of rail traffic through the proposed crossing one time per day. Typically, cars would be dropped off onto the storage track as the train moved south on one day, and would be picked up as the train moved north on the following day. The number of cars dropped off onto the storage track would vary but would not exceed 60 cars, and there would generally be no more than 20 to 25 cars on the storage track at any one time. Each such car is 50 feet long. The mainline train is not run on Sundays. The projected vehicular traffic on Thomas Road is 791 vehicles per day over the crossing based on projected planning data developed by the Department of Transportation. Based on an assumed speed limit for Thomas Road of 35 miles per hour, a driver approaching the proposed crossing from Old 41 could see to the left of the crossing 85 feet and to the right of the crossing 92 feet from a point 200 feet from the crossing. Similarly, leaving the proposed industrial park, a driver could see 76 feet to the right and 46 feet to the left from a point 200 feet from the crossing. The 200-foot distance is derived from the distance it would take a driver to stop his vehicle while traveling at 35 miles per hour without going onto the track. There are existing railroad crossings in incorporated Fort Myers that carry ten to 20 times as much traffic as the proposed crossing which are not signalized. Although the Department of Transportation has emphasized signalization of existing railroad crossings since 1973, it has only completed the construction of or planning for the construction of signalized crossings on 750 existing crossings. The Department has established a numerical priority of signalizing existing crossings based upon the speed of vehicular traffic, the speed of railway traffic, the number of trains, the number of vehicles, the type of signalization or warning devices existing at the crossing, the number of lanes, minimum sighting distances, minimum clear quadrant sight distances, parallel roads, and school bus usage. Under the Department's system, the lower the number assigned to the crossing the higher its priority. Planning for signalization of existing railroad crossings is currently in the 800's. The Department's Safety Engineer identified the Townsend Street crossing in Wauchula as an existing railway crossing comparable to the proposed crossing. The Townsend Street crossing had a traffic count of 425 vehicles per day, two trains per day, 20-mile-per-hour train speed, traffic speed limit of 25 miles per hour, and minimum visibility in its worst quadrant of 57 feet. The Townsend Street crossing is not signalized and has a priority number of 3,250. Electrical signal and warning devices at railway crossings may be bypassed and turned off by railway personnel during switching operations. No evidence was introduced that the opening of the proposed crossing would endanger or damage the railroad operation. Opening of this crossing is necessary for the development of a major industrial property in Lee County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend approval of the proposed crossing with the required roadside flashing lights and bells on all roadway approaches to the crossing, with the following additional conditions: The speed limit on Thomas Road be set at 20 miles per hour; 1/ The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be required to use a flagman at the crossing when switching cars onto the storage track over the crossing; The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be required to store cars at the southern-most end of the storage track and not leave cars on the northern end of the storage track when a flagman is not present; 1/ and The obstructions to vision be removed from the area surrounding the crossing to permit a driver approaching the crossing at 25 miles per hour to see a train in sufficient time to stop before moving onto the track. 1/ DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1980.
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted for an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Live Oak, Perry and South Georgia Railway Company Mile Post 1688 feet east of Mile Post 40.
Findings Of Fact Proper notice was given the parties and the hearing was delayed for thirty (30) minutes after time of notice in the event that the Respondent desired to make an appearance but was unavoidably detained. State Road 20 was relocated so that the subject crossing is necessary to the straightening and the realignment of the existing road. The average daily traffic is estimated to be 3,600 for the year 1976 and to be 4,800 in ten (10) years. The railroad is a single line trackage and is shown by the inventory to carry four (4) trains per day at 10 m.p.h. The tracks serve a local paper mill in Foley, Florida. An agreement has been worked out between the Department of Transportation and the Respondent railroad. The agreement provides for the protection and signalization at the location of the subject crossing and provides for the funding of the project. The prior or present crossing in this vicinity on State Road 20 will be open and in operation approximately 600 feet from the proposed crossing. Both crossings will have flashing lights and the existing crossing will carry primarily local traffic coming out of the county grade road. The new crossing will bear most of the traffic. The Respondent railroad is in agreement with the opening of the crossing; the Department of Transportation is in agreement that the additional crossing be permitted; the parties agree that the signalization shall be cantilevered flashing lights.
Recommendation Grant the permit to open the crossing. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February, 1976. 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 Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. R. A. Kelso, Chief Engineer Design & Construction Southern Railway Company (Live Oak, Perry and South Georgia Railway Company) 99 Spring Street, South West Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Findings Of Fact In 1927, the City of Haines City and the Atlantic Coastline Railroad Company entered into a written agreement to construct a crossing at Charles Street, now known generally as Currie Street. The city expended public funds in the construction of the crossing. The construction agreement contained no termination date and the crossing has been open and in use since its construction in 1927. The crossing is one of seven inside the city limits which are located along a two mile length of track. The track services four (4) passenger trains and ten (10) freight trains daily. While the train speed limit at the Charles Street crossing is seventy miles per hour for passenger trains and fifty miles per hour for freight trains, it is not possible for trains traveling at such speeds to stop quickly in the event of a blockage on the track. A passenger train would require approximately three quarters of a mile to stop while a freight train would require roughly one mile. Passenger trains primarily utilize the track during the day while freight trains utilize the track during an entire twenty-four hour period. Safety is the main factor considered by the Department in determining whether to open or close a railroad crossing. The Charles Street crossing is somewhat dangerous because of its "Z" shaped design which requires cars approaching the crossing to travel parallel to the tracks, thus hindering visibility. Visibility on the west side of the crossing is restricted because of the presence of an overpass and bridge piers. While visibility is impaired to a degree by the piers, a driver approaching the crossing has an adequate line of sight in both directions. The approach to the crossing is extremely rough and traffic by necessity crosses Charles Street at very low speeds. The crossing is not heavily utilized by vehicular traffic. Additionally, traffic noise from the nearby overpass could blend with a whistle signal thus causing a safety problem. However, on the days when readings at the crossing were taken, the adjacent noise level did not drown out the train whistle. In the opinion of the Department's Railroad Committee, the occurrence of accidents at the crossing is not required before the Committee determines a particular crossing to be hazardous. The Department also considers the need for emergency services and fire and police protection in determining whether to recommend closure. The proposed alternate crossing, McKay Street, is closer to the fire and police departments than Charles Street. However, because locomotives sometimes block the McKay Street crossing to service several industries located east of the crossing, 1/ emergency vehicles attempting to service certain residential areas would be required to travel an added distance of as much as two miles. Although the Railroad plans to install motion sensor devices, it does not appear that such devices would be satisfactory in a situation where a train was totally blocking a crossing. Although the railroad has a procedure for moving trains in emergency situations, it would be quicker to travel the approximate four minutes it could take to cover the added two miles rather than utilize the existing procedures. Moreover, response time is a factor in determining fire safety and is of added importance in this case because of the type of housing located in the area. Because of these factors, it appears that the closing of Charles Street could unduly inhibit the movement of emergency type vehicles. The alternative McKay Street route proposed by the Department and Railroad is through an existing residential area. McKay Street was neither designed nor built to accommodate heavy truck traffic. Additionally, a city ordinance prohibits driving semi-trucks through a residential area. The businesses utilizing the Charles Street crossing include a carnival operator and an automobile garage. Both businesses require the use of heavy equipment and trucks. McKay Street is not a viable alternative route for these businesses because of the cities prohibition on use of McKay Street for truck traffic and the manner in which the street was constructed. If the ordinances were not amended, these property owners and possibly others could lose lawful access to their property and businesses. The Department's Railroad Committee which recommends which rail/highway crossings should be closed, considers the existence of a feasible or viable alternate route to be critical to the recommendation regarding closure. If a viable alternate route does not exist, the committee would not recommend that a crossing be closed. While the Charles Street crossing has a number of features which could increase the chances of an accident occurring at the crossing, no such accidents have occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petition of the Florida Department of Transportation and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Inc., to close the rail/highway crossing at Charles Street is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
