The Issue Whether the at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue and Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 104 + 172' in Ormond Beach, Florida should be closed.
Findings Of Fact By application the Florida East Coast Railway Company seeks a permit to close an existing at-grade public railroad crossing located in Volusia County, Florida, at Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 104 + 172' in the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue. There exists a standard cross buck sign or fixed sign at the subject crossing and there is a vehicular stop sign on each side of the crossing. There is a total of sixteen freight rail movements and a total of two local freight rail movements crossing each day. In addition to these scheduled moves there are a few unscheduled movements such as work trains. The speed limit for this area is 35 m.p.h. A 24-hour traffic survey was set up on Lincoln Avenue just west of the railroad-tracks where the number of vehicles counted was 567. The 24-hour period started at 11:00 a.m. on November 18, 1975, and continued until 11:00 a.m. on November 19, 1975. There is no sight problem from south to north but from north to south there is a curve that bears to the right coming into Lincoln Avenue which gives a railroad sight problem. For vehicles there is a sight problem going from west to east, but no sight problem going from east to west. There have been four documented accidents at the crossing: one in 1962, one in 1965, and two in 1973. There has been expansion of the city to the areas particularly west of the railroad tracks and north of the crossing at State Road Lincoln Avenue is the only crossing between State Road 40 and State Road 5A. It is approximately 1.5 miles. There is a need for a railroad crossing in the area as an alternate to the crossing on State Road 40. The railroad suggests bells, flashing lights and gates, in the event this application to close is not permitted. The Department of Transportation recommends flashing lights and bells, suggesting that gates would be better, but such signalization adequate. The City did not recommend a type of signalization but did recommend that the permit to close be denied. The Hearing Officer further finds: The permit should be denied inasmuch as there is a need for the crossing; The crossing should be signalized to make it less hazardess; Signalization without gates is adequate.
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 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
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
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 =================================================================
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend that the application of the Petitioner-Applicant for the subject railroad crossing at Northwest 74th Avenue, between 74th and 77th Streets in the City of Medley, Florida, be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Lubow, Esquire City Attorney of Medley, Florida 819 Dupont Plaza Center Miami, Florida 33131 Phillip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Humes, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Respondent Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084
The Issue Whether 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 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 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.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing was entered into evidence and said notice was amended to reflect that the distance of an existing crossing north of the proposed crossing was 2,208' + north rather than 1,500' + north. The application was also changed to reflect that the proposed roadway was to extend the limits of a right of way to 120' instead of 100'. The change would place the mile post at a slightly different location. Upon examination of the area and taking testimony from the three attorneys involved in this hearing, it is the findings of this Hearing Officer that the change in location and the change in the proposed roadway is not of sufficient consequence that the hearing should have been postponed and re- noticed. Inasmuch as the parties directly involved were present, the owners of the railroad were represented, the owners of the Petitioner corporation were represented, there were representatives from the County and from the Florida Department of Transportation. A re-notice with the minor changes in location and in the width of the right of way would have been sent to the same representatives. The Notice of Hearing met the requirements of notice of public hearing. Petitioner Suntree Development Corporation is proposing to construct a connector road between Wickham Road and U.S. 1 approximately 2,208' south of an existing two-lane signalized (warning bells, lights, and gates) road crossing on Pineda Avenue in south Brevard County, Florida. The proposed road is to be four-laned with 120 foot right of way including a 20 foot medium strip. The road would be an access between U.S. 1 and the Suntree Community, a new community on approximately 2,800 acres of land which is predicted to have approximately 35,000 to 40,000 people after total development which is estimated to be completed within a 15 year period. The road would be a limited access with acceleration and deacceleration lines on U.S. 1 with an estimated total anticipated average daily traffic of from 23,000 to 60,000 trips per day. The proposed crossing involves a Type IV cantilevered signalization with bells, flashing lights and gates to be activated by trains. Cost of signalization and maintenance is to be borne by the Suntree Development Corporation. Petitioner is the primary owner of all the lands involved, but does not own all of the right of way needed to construct the crossing. Building is presently limited to a country club, sewage treatment plants, about a mile of roadway and two single family homes under construction and plans for the construction of some forty homes within the next few months. The proposed crossing was approved by the Brevard County Commission with the understanding that the crossing at Pineda Avenue would not be closed. The Florida East Coast Railway track in this area is a single track with 18 through freight trains a day which travel about 60 m.p.h. at the proposed crossing location. Two local freights move at unscheduled times across the railroad tracks. The tracks in the vicinity of the proposed crossing is nearly straight. The Florida East Coast Railway Company owns the right of way over the tracks and opposes the opening of another crossing in such close proximity to the crossing at Pineda Avenue, at this time. Storage capacity or storage area is the area in which cars can stand while awaiting clearance to proceed. The proposed road will contain 1,800' of storage area with 850' on the Wickham Road side and 950' on the U.S. 1 side. Using the average daily traffic figure when the community is developed, as calculated by Petitioner, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 3.28 minutes. Using the average daily traffic figures when the community is developed, as calculated by the Florida Department of Transportation, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 1.27 minutes. The Florida Department of Transportation recommends that an overpass be constructed rather than the at-grade crossing. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Pineda Avenue crossing can serve the vehicular traffic demand at present; Petitioner's plans for development, if realized, will demand another railroad cross- ing to serve the community; The proposed at-grade crossing is in such close proximity to U.S. 1 that it would be hazardous to vehicular traffic on U.S. 1 and the proposed Suntree entry road when the community is developed.
