Recommendation Close existing railroad crossing at Citrus Springs Boulevard and Seaboard Coastline Mile-post 763. DONE and ORDERED this 8th 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: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Gordan S. Burleson, Sr. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Livingston, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida James L. Shroads, Esquire 2350 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
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.
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Bay County, Florida, through its agent R. M. Myers, Administrative Assistant. The proposed crossing is across the tracks of the U.S. Air Force (C/O Warner Robins Air Force Base) presently leased to the Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railroad Co., railroad mile post N M.P. 2.34. The local popular name of the street as extended is Palo Alto Avenue. Traffic on the railroad as it now exist is two trains per day carrying fuel. The speed of the train is 15 miles per hour. The cost of installation is to be charged to the City of Lynn Haven, Florida and the cost of annual maintenance is to be charged to the City of Lynn Haven, Florida. The opening of the proposed crossing would serve a growing subdivision which at present has only one means of egress and ingress. If a permit is granted and the proposed crossing constructed, the route would carry some 16 school buses and would divert much of the existing northbound traffic on route 77 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. A need for the proposed crossing has been established. There is a growing subdivision which would use the crossing as a second exit and entrance; when the proposed roadway crosses the track, school buses will have a more direct access to the school and will use the proposed route; traffic from route 77 will use the proposed road as a convenience; the representatives of both the City of Lynn Haven and the county of Bay state that the area is a fast growing area and that the proposed crossing is needed. The parties at the hearing, which included the City, the County and the Railroad Company, reached an agreement as to the proper signalization of the crossing, the proper road devices necessary to insure safety before the crossing was reached and an assurance that property would be available so that there would be no sight blockage through the growth of vegetation in the future. Plans for the proposed crossing were submitted to the Hearing Officer and marked "A". An easement for visibility purposes at the proposed crossing was submitted to the Hearing Officer and marked "B". These exhibits were approved by the City, the County and the Florida Department of Transportation.
Recommendation Grant the permit. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 Les W. Burke, Esquire Post Office Box 2260 Panama City, Florida J. W. Cunningham, Vice President Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Co. Post Office Box 669 Panama City, Florida 32401 Mr. Robert Miller Tyndall Air Force Base Panama City, Florida William V. Kinsaul, City Manager Lynn Haven, Florida Mr. G. S. Burleson, Sr., P.E. Assistant State Utility Engineer Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
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 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a beach house petitioners plan to build in south Walton County was already under construction, within the meaning of Section 161.053(7), Florida Statutes (1981) and Rule 16B-33.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, at the time the current coastal construction control line took effect there.
Findings Of Fact In October of 1982, the petitioners acquired a lot in south Walton County, on the north shore of the Gulf of Mexico. Even before the purchase, Mr. Wiese had been in touch with respondent's personnel, who apprised him of the imminence of the adoption of the new (now current) coastal construction control line, at that time already proposed for Walton County. The former coastal construction control line was considerably seaward of the current line, which became effective on December 29, 1982. Petitioners, who have built some seven houses, drew plans for a house to be built on their Walton County lot one foot landward of the old coastal construction control line. They applied for and obtained the necessary county building permit. They contracted for grading on site, which took place on November 27, 1982. In the course of this work, the landward face of the sand dune was disturbed and petitioners realized that, if they were to build so close to the water, a wall or something like a wall would have to be erected and buttressed to keep the sand dune from migrating under or into their beach house. They determined that the plans were inadequate as drawn. Mr. Wiese nevertheless arranged for one Al Christopher to bring two poles to the site and place one of them upright in the sand. When asked at hearing how long the two poles Mr. Christopher delivered to the site were, Mr. Wiese said he did not know. After Mr. Christopher began, petitioners did not ask him to desist either with bringing pilings to the site or with placing them in the ground. Mr. Christopher evidently did what he was asked to do, before he ever began working with the poles. Before the single pile was placed, batter boards were used to locate the perimeters planned for the building. Batter boards are temporary markers which are removed once the foundation is in place. In constructing piling foundations for beach houses along the gulf coast, in this part of Florida if not elsewhere, the ordinary sequence is to bring all foundation piles to the site before bringing the equipment necessary to install all the piles at once. This makes for efficient use of expensive machinery, and is virtually always done. One of the Wieses' neighbors, fearing that the new coastal construction control line would take effect last fall arranged for a single pile to be driven, but his project was well underway by the time the new coastal construction control line did in fact take effect. As late as March of this year, Mr. Wiese checked with a Texas supplier to see if foundation piles would be available for the project. The plans drawn before the grading of November 27, 1982, called for a foundation of 37 piles, each of which was to be 45 feet long. No horizontal members nor bracing of any kind was contemplated for the foundation. The foundation piles were to be put so close together that it would have been impractical to bring heavy equipment in to do the grading after they were in place. The idea in leveling the ground was to prepare it so a concrete slab could be poured to serve as a parking surface underneath the beach house. Under both the plans originally drawn and the plans under which petitioners now hope to proceed the parking surface itself is not expected to have a structural function, Mr. Wiese's testimony to the contrary notwithstanding. Once petitioners were persuaded that the project needed "reengineering," they diligently sought out expert assistance and new foundation plans were eventually drawn to their satisfaction. Petitioners' efforts took place on a regular, if not a daily basis, but consisted in large part of finding the right people for the "reengineering" job. The plans which petitioners propose to use were stamped with the final engineer's seal on March 3, 1983, more than two months after the current coastal construction control line took effect.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioners' beach house project grandfathered status, and apply the coastal construction control line adopted for Walton County on December 29, 1982, in any agency action regarding the project. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1983, Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 ApA1Achee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Jacobs, Esquire John C. Pelham, Esquire and Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire ERVIN, VARN, ODOM & KITCHEN Post Office Box 1770 Tallahassee, Florida 32322-1170 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Suite 1003 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above styled case at Trenton, Florida on July 8, 1980.
The Issue By its Motion to Dismiss, Plant City raised the question of the jurisdiction and authority of the Department of Transportation to close a railroad crossing on its own initiative. In short, Plant City argued that under the Home Rule Provisions of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapter 375, Florida Statutes, Plant City had authority to regulate railroad crossings and was the only entity which could initiate the closing of a crossing within the city's corporate limits. The Department of Transportation and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company argued that Section 330.12, Florida Statutes, gave the Department authority to regulate the opening and closing of railroad crossings, and that this authority to open and close crossings anywhere in the state was exclusive. While it was argued that the Department had the authority to initiate such an action on its own initiative without a request from a local government or a railroad, this is not an issue based on the facts presented because the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company initiated the action to close the railroad crossings in question. The Motion to Dismiss was denied on the basis that the Department of Transportation and Plant City had joint authority to regulate railroad crossings in the city; however, the Department had exclusive authority to open and close railroad crossings in the state under Section 338.12(3), Florida Statutes. The remaining issue relates to a factual determination of whether the crossings in question should be closed. It was held that these determinations should be made in light of the criteria for closing railroad crossings and opening crossings as stated in Rule 14-46.03(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. The rule for closing a crossing states that a crossing is a candidate for closing if it does not have active grade crossing devices, has a traffic count of less than 1,000 vehicles per day, and has an access read to an adjacent crossing; however, closing should not be considered if it would increase the traffic on the adjacent crossing to the capacity level, or if the adjacent crossing is already at the capacity level. In addition, the criteria for opening a crossing are necessity, convenience, and safety of rail and vehicular traffic.
Findings Of Fact Gordon Street Crossing The traffic count on the Gordon Street Crossing was taken on several occasions. The highest one-day count recorded was 732 crossings, while the lowest number of crossings for one day was 200. Traffic across this crossing is less than 1,000 crossings per day. The Gordon Street Crossing lacks active grade crossing devices. The most accessible crossing adjacent to the Gordon Street Crossing is located 340 feet west at Warnell Street. Warnell Street is accessible from Gordon Street north of the railroad track via Baker Street and Reynolds Street, a paired one-way system. Warnell Street is accessible from Gordon Street south of the railroad track via Jenkins Street. The next crossing east of Gordon Street is Maryland Avenue, located 1,345 feet to the east. It is accessible north of the railroad track on the Reynolds/Baker Street system, and south of the railroad track on Jenkins Street. The highest traffic count recorded on the Maryland Avenue Crossing for a 24-hour period was 2,784 crossings. This is well below the capacity of this crossing, which is signalized with flashing lights and gates. The highest count recorded on the Warnell Street Crossing was 1,700 crossings in a 24-hour period. This is also well below the maximum traffic count which this crossing can handle. The Warnell Street Crossing has no active signaling devices at this time. Closing of the Gordon Street Crossing would not deny access to any real property, and therefore maintaining the crossing is not necessary to the use and enjoyment of any real property by its owner. Public safety would be enhanced only slightly by the elimination of the Gordon Street Crossing. Most of the benefit of closing this crossing would be derived from the shift of traffic from the Gordon Street Crossing to the signalized Maryland Avenue Crossing. However, the Warnell Street Crossing, which is not signalized and is only 230 feet east, will probably receive the majority of the diverted traffic. This will negate to a degree the benefit of the closing. The inconvenience to the public from closing the Gordon Street Crossing will be minimal because of the Warnell Street route which is very close at hand. Thomas Street Crossing The traffic count on the Thomas Street Crossing was taken on several occasions. The highest one-day count recorded was 640 crossings, while the lowest was 113 crossings. Traffic over the crossing was less than 1,000 vehicles per day. The Thomas Street Crossing is located in the very center of Plant City and is signalized with flashing lights without gates. There are several crossings which provide alternatives to the Thomas Street Crossing. Moving to the east, the next four streets cross the railroad track: Wheeler Street, 230 feet away; Evens Street, 510 feet away; Collins Street, 780 feet away; and Palmer Street, 1,060 feet away. To the west there are two crossings: Walker Street, 270 feet away; and Howard Street, 800 feet away. North of the railroad track these crossings may be reached by the Baker/Reynolds Street paired one-way system or by Mahoney Street, a two-way street. To the south of the railroad track the crossings may be reached on South Drane/Arden Mays. The Thomas Street Crossing is the only one of these crossings which dead-ends immediately south of the railroad track. The highest traffic count recorded on Wheeler Street in one day was 11,760 crossings. The highest count recorded on Walker Street in one day was 1,237 crossings. Traffic capacity at either crossing immediately adjacent to the Thomas Street Crossing would not be pushed to or beyond its designed capacity by the closing of the Thomas Street Crossing. Tie closing of the Thomas Street Crossing would not deny access to any real property, and therefore maintaining the crossing is not necessary to the use and enjoyment of any real property by its owner. The accessibility to multiple alternative crossings east and west of the Thomas Street Crossing would prevent any substantial inconvenience to the public, particularly in light of the fact that the Thomas Street Crossing is the only one of these crossings which is not a through street south of the railroad track. Public safety would be only minimally enhanced by the elimination of this crossing because of the close proximity of the remaining crossings. While it is argued that elimination of any crossing reduces the risk of an auto/train collision, it is the act of crossing the track that creates the risk. The closing of this crossing will not affect the number of crossings but only divert the traffic. The benefit of greater distance between the remaining crossings is nullified by the number of crossings existing so closely to both the east and west of the Thomas Street Crossing. Davis Street Crossing The traffic count on the Davis Street Crossing was taken on several occasions. The highest traffic count recorded was 1,700 cars per day, and the lowest 486. On one other occasion it exceeded 1,000 cars per 24-hour period by 39 crossings. It had a five-day average of 856.4 crossings. The Davis Street Crossing does not have active grade crossing devices. The closest alternative crossing is Howard Street, located east 1,190 feet. The next alternative crossing to the west is Alexander Street, 2,100 feet away. The Howard Street Crossing and the Alexander Street Crossing can be reached south of the railroad track on Haines Street. The Howard Street Crossing can be reached north of the railroad track on the Bakers Reynolds Street paired one-way system or on Mahoney Street. Although north of the railroad track one can travel west from Davis Street to Alexander Street, the routes can only be described as circuitous. Reynolds Street is one-way the wrong way, Mahoney Street is not a through street west of Carey Street, and Baker Street begins to run northwest at Carey Street. The highest traffic count recorded on the Howard Street Crossing was 1,030 crossings per day. The highest traffic count recorded on the Alexander Street Crossing was 18,288 per day. Traffic capacity at either crossing immediately adjacent to the Thomas Street Crossing would not be pushed to or beyond its designed capacity by closing of the Davis Street Crossing. Closing of the Davis Street Crossing would not deny access to any real property, and therefore maintaining the crossing is not necessary to the use and enjoyment of any real property by its owner. Public safety would be enhanced only slightly by the closure of the Davis Street Crossing because of the remaining multiple crossings. The small benefit to public safety would be primarily from the diversion of traffic to the Alexander Street Crossing which is fully signalized with flashing lights and gates. The Davis Street Crossing is essentially flat with good visibility afforded to both train and vehicular traffic. Train traffic would be traveling at reduced speed at the Davis Street Crossing, having entered the city limits of Plant City. Convenience of the public would be adversely affected by the closing of the Davis Street Crossing. The crossing in question carries on some days more than 1,000 cars per day. The average daily traffic count (ADTC) of 856 crossings exceeds that of Howard Street (450 ADTC) and Walker Street (529 ADTC), both of which would be retained. The distances to the alternative crossings are greater than the distances to alternative crossings of the other crossings proposed for closing. The lack of accessibility is compounded north of the railroad track by the lack of through streets running east and west. As pointed out at hearing, the area immediately south of the Davis Street Crossing is primarily a black neighborhood, while the area immediately north is predominantly white. The principal recreational facilities are located northwest of the Davis Street Crossing. Closing this crossing would create a physical barrier between these neighborhoods and residents and limit accessibility of the recreational facilities in the northwest area of town. The police chief testified that closure of the Davis Street Crossing would make transfers of vehicles between the southwest and northwest parts of town more difficult. The fire chief pointed out that the area along Haines Street between Davis Street and Alexander Street immediately south of the railroad track is an industrialized area containing large warehouses. In fighting a fire in this area, a crossing at each end of the area would be helpful. Three alternative routes of travel between the southwest and northwest areas are possible if the Davis Street Crossing were closed. Using the map, Exhibit 10, which lacks any scale reference, the street distances between the center of the southwest area to the hospital (H) and recreational facilities (A & P) were measured. Alternative I was via Howard Street. Alternative II was via Alsobrook Street and Alexander Street, and Alternative III was via Haines Street and Alexander Street. The following measurements were taken from the dot (.) in the intersection of Ball Street and the third street west of Franklin Street, which is unlabeled: A P H Alternative I 17.0" 17.75" 20.0" Alternative II 15.5 15.50 13.5 Alternative III 14.5 14.50 13.5 Warnell Street 12.5 13.50 16.0 The existing crossing clearly provides the shortest distance to the recreational facilities, which is a prime concern to persons in the southwest section of town. Alternative III would require traffic to detour through an industrialized area of town, and Alternatives I and II are circuitous.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency head enter a final order closing the Gordon Street and Thomas Street Crossings and leaving the Davis Street Crossing open. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 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 Ronae B. Keiser, Esquire Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Paul S. Buchman, Esquire Buckman Building 212 North Collins Street Post Office Box 5 Plant City, Florida 33566 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 79-663T 79-964T PLANT CITY, 79-1910T Respondent. /
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
