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 Whether a permit should be granted by the Florida Department of Transportation for a public-at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Section 55000- 6607, State Road (Laurel Oak Drive) Leon County, Parcel 1 (XS0-H) SCL Railroad MP SPA-809.
Findings Of Fact A railroad grade crossing application was submitted by Henry G. Hanson, County Engineer, Leon County, Florida, for a public-at-grade rail highway opening by new roadway construction. The crossing location is in the unincorporated municipality of Woodville, Florida. The local popular name of the street is Laurel Oak Drive. The railroad company is Seaboard Coastline Railroad and the mile post distance and direction is 1,5534 ft. south of SPA- 809. The application stated that "Prior to construction the Board of County Commissioners will adopt the necessary resolutions for the maintenance of the crossing." The cost estimate as indicated on the application was $20,000.00. The application arose as a result of a proposed low cost or rent subsidy type housing development which is proposed to be constructed in the Woodville area in southern Leon County, Florida. The proposed subdivision is to be called "Woodlands" an area which lies west of the street called Tallahassee Street. Between Tallahasse and the proposed subdivision runs the Seaboard Coastline railroad. The subject land is presently owned by a group of people for whom Mr. John Butler is a representative. The proposed subdivision is a cooperative effort by the landowners represented by Mr. Butler, the Tallahassee Housing Authority represented by Mr. Calvin 0gburn and the Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida. Leon County is involved inasmuch as the subdivision as proposed would be dedicated to Leon County, Florida, whereby Leon County would take over maintenance and ownership of the roadways including that portion of the roadway crossing the railroad. The application for the subject crossing was made by Leon County as the ultimate owner of the crossing. At the date of this hearing there is no subdivision but plans for a subdivision have been submitted. The plans are for a low cost housing which was described as houses that would cost between 20 and 23 thousand dollars ($20,000-$23,000) including the cost of the lot and would be approximately 900 to 1000 square feet. The proposal is for 53 lots each within an approximate 75 foot frontage. The Department of Community Affairs administers the rural land fund which is a 2.5 million dollar fund to provide lost cost lots. This department lends money to local governments, housing authorities or small communities and rural areas to buy land and to cause it to be developed as in the subject cause. The position of the Department of Community Affairs is to approve or deny a loan to the Tallahassee Housing Authority. A plat of the proposed subdivision was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs as part of their application for $199,000.00 which would be used to buy the land and developed it. There is no access to the land on which the proposed subdivision would be built except at the proposed site for the subject crossing. The 75 foot lots would cost approximately $3,760.00 each. There are two trains per day on unscheduled runs using the subject railroad tracks. The estimation is that there would be between 300 to 350 vehicles per day using the crossing. The speed of the train is approximately 25 miles per hour. The two lane rural road with 6 foot shoulders as proposed would cross the railroad track. The recommendations of the District Safety Engineer for the Third District employed by the Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, is that a type 3 installation is required. The installation is roadside flashing lights with bells. A representative of the railroad read the following statement from Mr. Tom Hutchinson, Vice President of Maintenance of Seaboard Coastline Railroad, "It will be the railroad's position in this application that there arc no objection to what is proposed with the provision that automatic warning devices are installed and maintained at the expense of the applicant and with further conditions that any changes or alterations or improvements of the cost will be borne by the applicant." The Hearing Officer further finds: That if the proposed subdivision is in fact built and homes sold there would be a need for the proposed railroad crossing. That there would be a need for the proposed railroad crossing prior to the completion of the subdivision inasmuch as there would be a large amount of traffic during the construction of this subdivision. Leon County would maintain the crossing. The safety devices as recommended by the Florida Department of Transportation which is flashing lights and ringing bells is necessary for the safety of those traveling to and from the proposed subdivision. A simple cross buck would be inadequate for the safety of those living or working in the proposed subdivision.
Recommendation Grant the permit upon approval of the project. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Earl O. Black, Esquire County Engineer's Office Leon County Courthouse Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Henry G. Hanson, County Engineer Leon County Courthouse Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. G. S. Burleson, Sr,, P.E. Assistant State Utility Engineer (RRs) Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
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 issue for determination is whether the request for a permit to close the railroad crossing located at East Dade Avenue in the City of Bushnell, Florida, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Bushnell received notice of DOT's intended agency action in this matter in the form of a copy of DOT's, INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT, dated May 23, 1990. The permit would authorize the closing of the East Dade Avenue railroad crossing located in Bushnell. Bushnell filed a petition requesting formal proceedings on June 19, 1990. Bushnell has a population of 1,945, according to unofficial 1990 census figures. Population has increased almost 100 percent from the last census count which revealed the population to be 983. Within the City, there is a total cf six street crossings on CSX's railroad. The railroad traverses the center of the City with one main line and one storage line which permits trains traveling in opposite directions to pass each other. All the crossings fall within .76 of a mile and are located on traffic routes intersecting with the City's main thoroughfares; Main street running parallel to the west side of the railroad and Market street running parallel to the railroad's east side. In addition to the crossing located on East Dade Avenue, the other five crossings in the City are located on East Seminole Avenue, Central Avenue, Bushnell Plaza, Noble Avenue and Belt Avenue. While the East Dade Avenue crossing is un-signalized, the other five crossings are protected by flashing lights, bells and gates. Factors usually considered in determining need for a railroad crossing are locations of schools, hospita1s, fire stations and police stations. Also considered are volume and type of railroad and vehicular traffic; availability of alternate crossings; whether alternate crossings require use of excessively circuitous routes; whether the crossing presents a restrictive view to crossing traffic; the length of time that the crossing is blocked to crossing traffic by train activity; motor vehicular and train speed limits in the area; and the number of accidents occurring at the crossing. There are no hospital facilities within the City. The elementary school is located south of East Dade Avenue near Noble Avenue and Bushnell Plaza. The high school is located north of Belt Avenue and west of the railroad outside of the city. The East Dade Avenue crossing is not included in any school bus route for either school. The City Hall and Police station are located adjacent to Noble Avenue. This location is south of East Dade Avenue and east of the railroad. The East Dade Avenue crossing is not a regularly used route for fire and police vehicles, although it does serve as a main alternate route for those vehicles. The major reason for usage of the East Dade Avenue crossing as an alternate route for fire and police vehicles is the lack of traffic signalization at the intersection of East Dade Avenue with Main and Market Streets. Since Bushnell has no preemptive circuitry for existing traffic signals at the other nearby signalized alternative routes, closing the East Dade Avenue crossing would constitute an excessive restriction to emergency vehicles in the form of inordinate delay in their response time while waiting for traffic lights at more heavily travelled alternative intersections. Such delay would subtract from the limited time available to emergency personnel, commonly known as the "golden hour", to render aid to individuals requiring immediate attention. The Dade Avenue crossing is 580.8 feet, 686.4 feet and 1108.8 feet from Belt Avenue, Noble Avenue and Bushnell Plaza, respectively. In the event that the East Dade Avenue crossing is closed, it is estimated that motorists desiring access to East Dade Avenue from Market Avenue will only need to travel an additional few seconds and use Belt Avenue to then access East Dade Avenue. DOT conducted traffic counts on East Dade Avenue on February 5, 1990 through February 19, 1990. The results show that an average of 367 westbound vehicles use the crossing daily. A total of 178 eastbound vehicles utilize the crossing on a daily basis. An average of 16 trains use the tracks daily, passing through the City at approximately 35 miles per hour. The storage track, located on the west side of the main line, presents an obstacle to observation by an eastbound motorist on East Dade Avenue if a train is on the storage track. The lack of railroad signalization at the Dade Avenue intersection with Main and Market Streets presents a potential for automobiles, waiting at the stop sign on East Dade Avenue for approaching vehicles on Main and Market Streets to pass, to become trapped on the railroad tracks. Further, East Dade Avenue does not provide a direct route to any of the City's points of interest or public facilities. DOT quantifies the relative safety railroad crossings through the assignment of a safety index number to each crossing in the state. In a comparison of railroad crossings, a higher safety index number for one crossing implies a higher level of safety at that crossing. The determination of the safety index number for a crossing includes consideration of traffic volume at the crossing. East Dade Avenue has the highest safety index of any of the six railroad crossings in Bushnell. As determined by DOT traffic counts conducted in February of 1990, the crossing also has the lowest average daily traffic use of any of the six crossings, a determinative factor in accident occurrence. Belt Avenue and Noble Avenue, the two crossings immediately adjacent to the north and the south of the East Dade Avenue crossing have average daily traffic counts of 2,715 and 6,080, respectively. In view of the low traffic count at the East Dade Avenue crossing, closure of that crossing may increase Belt Avenue crossing traffic from 2,715 to 3,023 and Noble Avenue traffic from 6,080 to 6,388. The minor increase in traffic at the Belt Avenue and Noble Avenue crossings in the event of closure of the East Dade Avenue crossing would have no appreciable effect in the safety index presently accorded those two crossings. The Belt Avenue crossing safety index could be expected to decline from 65 to 64.4 and the Noble Avenue index could be expected to decline from 59.8 to 59.6. The CSX railroad contemplates the expenditure of $1,277 a year to maintain the East Dade Avenue crossing. This cost figure includes only the cost of surface maintenance and does not include any cost of maintenance of any future signalization that might be installed at the crossing in lieu of the crossing's closure. Funding has been reserved to signalize the East Dade Avenue crossing in the event the crossing is not closed. The CSX railroad also contemplates that closing the East Dade Avenue crossing will increase the likelihood that trains will be permitted to travel through the City at speeds closer to the line speeds (some as high as 79 miles per hour) realized outside the City, resulting in more economical operation of train engines and thereby yielding some savings to the railroad. No authorization regarding such increased speed limits has been given by DOT or Bushnell to the railroad at the present time. Bushnell's comprehensive plan assumes that the East Dade Avenue crossing will remain open as part of the total traffic circulation element of that plan. The City's comprehensive plan was not reviewed by DOT's diagnostic team in the course of their research regarding whether to recommend closure of she East Dade Avenue crossing, nor did the team hold any consultation with City officials regarding the plan. Closure of the East Dade Avenue crossing would adversely affect existing and proposed local businesses on East Dade Avenue near the intersection with Main and Market Streets because such action would prohibit direct access to Main Street. DOT has established a policy manual, agency procedures applicable to any implementation of the agency's decisions to close railroad crossings. Pertinent procedures in section 1.4.9 of that manual restate rule closure criteria contained in the agency's promulgated administrative rules and emphasizes that no crossing should be closed that serves as a main or alternative route for emergency vehicles. Implementation of any proposed closure of a crossing is to be accomplished in accordance with section 2.3.4 of the manual which also states that a crossing should not be closed if it serves as a main or alternative route for emergency vehicles. This section further prescribes that consultations should be had with city, county and state planning agencies to determine closure compatibility with established growth plans.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the requested permit for closure of the East Dade Avenue crossing. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statut.es, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioners' Proposed Findings. (findings submitted by DOT have been adopted by CSX.) Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 3.-5. Adopted by reference. Adopted in substance. Adopted by reference. 8.-17. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. The weight of the evidence supports a finding that 16 trains use the tracks daily. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Rejected, hypothetical with regard to subject crossing. Adopted. Rejected in part in view of the finding that lack of railroad signalization permits automobiles to be on the tracks at the crossing. Adopted as to the hazardous condition potential for cars to be trapped on the tracks. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 24.-26.Adopted. Rejected, speculative. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected to extent that this proposed finding speaks to the agency's adherence to its procedures manual. The evidence establishes the agency's dereliction in this regard. 30.-32.Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Adopted by reference. 3.-6. Rejected, unnecessary. 7. Included. 8.-1S. Rejected, recitation of law and preliminary matters. 16.-25.Adopted in substance. Hypothetical. Adopted. 28.-30.Rejected, recitation agency policy manual. 31. Adopted in substance. 32.-36.Adopted by reference. 37.-41.Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen H. Shook, Esq. CSX Transportation Inc. 500 Water Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Charles C. Gardner, Esq. Department Of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Bryan F. Eubanks, Esq. P.O. Box 128 Bushnell, FL 33513 General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
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 there should be a public at-grade opening and new roadway construction on 54th Avenue North, Section No. 15,000-6619 Pinellas County Parcel No. 1 (XSO-H) 2,088 feet northwest of Mile Post SY-886.
Findings Of Fact The railroad crossing at 59th Avenue North can serve as a single access to the proposed subdivision. Use of the access as the only entrance to the subdivision requires travel through a substandard area and requires the Petitioner to upgrade 1900 feet of a county owned road at its own expense (59th Avenue North). Two accesses would be convenient to the future homeowners and permit better accessibility for emergency vehicles and for service vehicles. If the proposed crossing is not approved, the Petitioner may not be able to obtain private or government subsidized financing (FHA) for the proposed subdivision. With respect to the proposed crossing at 54th Avenue North, the Petitioner has obtained an easement from Pinellas County for an extension of 54th Avenue across the railroad tracks into the subdivision. Pinellas County has accepted responsibility for perpetual maintenance of the crossing if the proper signalization is installed, at no expense to the county. The Respondent Florida Department of Transportation recommends that if the crossing is permitted, the following conditions be met: 54th Avenue North should be constructed with a six inch raised vertical curb on each side of the railroad tracks. 54th Avenue North should be modified to eliminate the dip which presently exists on each side of the railroad tracks in order to improve visibility. Side-mounted flashing lights, gates and bells should be installed at the crossing. That no structures should be built on the small triangular piece of land designated as Parcel B on Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The Respondent recommended and the Petitioner agreed that the signalization and roadway modifications will be installed or constructed without cost to the Florida Department of Transportation. The possible use of the railroad corridor as a mass transit or light rail facility is speculative at this time. The Respondent Seaboard Coastline Railroad had notice of the hearing and made no appearance.
Recommendation The Parties have shown that the crossing is necessary for the safety of the future residents of the area and that when developed, there will be a need for two accesses to the subdivision. Issuance of a permit for the proposed railroad crossing at 54th Avenue North with the conditions set forth in the fifth and sixth Finding of Fact. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 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: William L. Boyd, Esquire Post Office Box 5617 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 G. S. Burleson, Sr. Assistant State Utility Engr. Haydon Burns Building, DOT Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Henry Van Kestern Cambell - Van Kesteren, Inc. 4422 Cantral Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 W. L. Anderson District Utility Engineer, DOT Post Office Box 1249 Bartow, Florida 37516 W. Gray Dunlap, Esquire County Attorney 315 Haven Street Clearwater, Florida 37516 Thomas J. Murphy Post Office Box 1304 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
The Issue Whether permits for two public at-grade railroad crossings should be granted.
Findings Of Fact By application the Agrico Chemical Company seeks permits to open two public at-grade railroad crossings by constructing a spur track between the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and Agrico Railroad beginning 1,868 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Mile Post SVC 851 at Agrock, Florida. The application involves opening two public at-grade rail highway crossings by new rail line construction. The local popular name of the road is Fort Green Road and Payne Creek Road. Two tracks were constructed less than two years ago so that the Seaboard Coastline Railroad could come off their main line and come into Agrico and pick up loaded or unloaded cars for transportation to the south, north and west. Agrico now desires to construct a track which more directly ties into what they term their Payne Creek trackage to the southeast. The new crossings would come straight across the Seaboard Coastline mainline into the Fort Green trackage. Agrico would have to spend less time on Seaboard Coastline trackage and the plan is to erect electric signal crossings whereas there are no electric signal crossings in the area at the present time. Such signalization would render the crossings less hazardous. The Petitioner Agrico will pay for the signalization at both crossings. Signalization consists of bells and signal lights. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad will maintain the crossings and signalization at the expense of the Petitioner Agrico. There are twelve trains per day. The Respondent Seaboard Coastline Railroad was not represented at the hearing, but a letter was introduced stating that "Seaboard Coastline will indicate no objections to these crossings when the appropriate public hearing is scheduled". The Respondent Department of Transportation reviewed the subject application and expressed the desire of the district railroad committee that Agrico Chemical Company pay for the installation of flashing lights and that the installation would conform to the manual on uniform traffic control devices pertaining to signalized railroad crossings. It also stated that in the interest of good safety practices, no buildings should be constructed or plantings made that would prevent good sight distance at the crossing. Additionally, the Respondent Department of Transportation suggested that the railroad crossings be maintained by "other than the Department of Transportation". The Hearing Officer further finds: The application for new railroad trackage is in the interest of the Petitioner Agrico Chemical Company and is in the interest of the public using the two railroad crossings. Signalization as planned will increase the safety of vehicular traffic.
The Issue Whether there should be a closing of a public-at-grade rail/highway crossing and removal of roadway in the vicinity of seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company's Crossing Number 622963-n and whether there should be improvements on Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Crossing Number 622964-v, Mile Post 825.15.
Findings Of Fact The Town of Davenport applied for a closing of a public-at-grade rail/highway crossing and roadway removal at the railroad crossing on North Boulevard in the Town of Davenport. Abandonment of the street was conditioned upon the improvement of Magnolia Street from Highway 17-92 on the east and running west to State Road 547. A public hearing was requested by the applicant. The following stipulation was entered into: "The Town of Davenport made application to close a crossing within the incorporated limits after the City officially closed a street in the Town of Davenport known as North Boulevard. The portion of the street that was officially closed by the City and abandoned includes a railroad crossing known as the Seaboard Coast Line railroad tracks. As a result of the closing other routes must he used by vehicles including the crossing on Magnolia Street in the Town of Davenport. Improvements have been made to the Magnolia Street crossing by the railroad. The Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, agreed to assist in the installation of Type 3, Class 4, municipal design active signalization devices which consist of side mounted flashing lights, bells, and gates on the Magnolia Street crossing. The Town of Davenport agreed to furnish ten (10) percent of the monies necessary to install said signalization when the crossing comes within the program. The Town of Davenport has also agreed to share in a 50/50 basis the maintenance cost with the Seaboard Coast Line Railioad Company which would amount to approximately $400 a year. Consistent with this agreement the Respondent Florida Department of Transportation agrees that there is no need for the existing crossing and a permit for the closing is agreed to be granted for the closing on North Boulevard."
Recommendation Grant permit for closing. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32394 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: James T. Joiner, Esquire Post Office Box 761 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
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. /
