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.
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation should issue a permit for the installation of a public at-grade railroad crossing in the vicinity of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad track, 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 on the alignment of Baya Avenue, East of Lake City, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony of witnesses for the petitioner and the arguments of counsel and those witnesses appearing for the Department of Transportation on the issues and considering the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, is duly authorized to establish and maintain a primary system of highways within the boundaries of the State of Florida. The Petitioner has heretofore filed an application with the appropriate division of the Department of Transportation of the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 330.21 Florida Statutes, for Permission to establish a graded railroad crossing for Baya Avenue (U.S. 90) within the city limits of Lake City, Florida on the state primary highway system proposed to intersect the Respondent Railroad's tracks approximately 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad. The Respondent Railroad Company did not appear although the record shows that Notice of Hearing was properly given and that plans of the project and proposed signalization were duly sent by letter dated October 8, 1975. There was uncontroverted testimony by Mr. Terry Crews, Assistant District Utilities Engineer for the Petitioner that Mr. R. A. Kelso, Chief Engineer, Design and Construction, Southern Railway System had discussed a portion of the project by telephone with Mr. Crews and no objections were raised. No letters of objection were filed. The Petitioner is in the process of constructing a new four-lane vehicular thoroughfare. This construction is necessary in the rerouting of vehicular traffic through Lake City, Florida (U.S. 90). As a part of this construction it is necessary to cross the railroad and State Road 100 which lie adjacent to each other. It will be a four-lane divided highway with a painted median, with curbs and gutters in the vicinity of the crossing. At the time of construction, the railroad will consist of single-line trackage that carries two (2) trains per day at speeds of approximately 20 miles per hour. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 vehicles per day will use this facility by 1984. Studies conducted by Department of Transportation personnel reveal that the crossing should be signalized with cantilevered flashing lights, ringing bells and pavement markings in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This signalization should be interconnected with vehicle traffic signalization located at State Road 100 to control vehicular traffic at the highway crossing as well as the railroad crossing. The applicant agrees to install and maintain such signalization. The Hearing officer further finds: The proposed crossing is necessary and desirable; The signalization is adequate as planned, to protect the public; The Petitioner needs the crossing; The Respondent has not opposed the crossing; The Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, will Install and maintain the crossing.
The Issue Whether 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 The issue for consideration in this case is whether the at- grade railroad crossing over the CSX railroad tracks located at Mottie Road in Gibsonton should be closed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, CSX Transportation, Inc. operated a railroad running generally north and south through the city of Gibsonton, located in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for the licensing and permitting of at-grade railroad crossings located on the public roads of this state. The Petitioner, Concerned Citizens of Gibsonton Area, Inc. is a private citizens group whose purpose is the betterment of living conditions in the community. The at-grade crossing in issue is located where Mottie Road crosses the CSX tracks in Gibsonton. On January 26, 1996, CSX submitted an application to the Department to close the Mottie Road crossing. That crossing was one of three crossings proposed for closing. Pursuant to the requirements of the Department, a public hearing was conducted on the closings at which the railroad presented its proposal and affected citizens were given an opportunity to submit matters in opposition to the closings. On April 25, 1996, after a review of the matters submitted by the applicant and by the public at the hearing held for that purpose, the Department issued the instant Intent to Issue permit. There is only one track at the Mottie Road crossing. Mottie Road is paved and is approximately twenty feet wide at the crossing. It supports an average daily traffic of approximately 434 vehicles per day. It is, primarily, a rather short residential street though it does carry some commercial traffic. It runs east and west. One end of Mottie Road ends where it intersects with Roosevelt Road on the east and the other ends at US Highway 41 just west of the crossing. The crossing has no active signal, but motorists are advised of the crossing by cross-bucks at each side. Nundy Avenue is the east-west roadway just north of Mottie Road. Whereas Mottie Road runs for only several blocks, Nundy Avenue runs from Lula Street, a north-south street west of US Highway 41, east to its intersection with East Bay Road, almost out to Interstate Highway 75. Nundy Avenue is the first east-west thoroughfare south of Gibsonton Drive, which intersects with Interstate Highway 75 to the east of town. It is primarily a two lane residential road. The Gibsonton shopping area is located primarily on Gibsonton Drive east of US Highway 41. The crossing at Nundy Avenue is presently guarded by cantilever flashing lights. These lights are scheduled to be upgraded to flashing lights and gates sometime during 1997. The average daily traffic count on Nundy Avenue is 2,948 vehicles, including 21 school busses. Nundy Avenue is rated for 5,000 vehicles per day. It can handle without difficulty any through traffic diverted from Mottie Road by virtue of the proposed closing of the crossing. Petitioners object to the closing of the Mottie Road crossing for several reasons, the primary of which is safety. According to Operation Life Saver, a non-profit organization, eighty percent of car/train accidents are due to driver error - stupidly driving across the tracks. Mr. Johnson, a member of the Petitioner and its spokesman at the hearing, contends that closure of the Mottie Road crossing will stop the crossings but it will also increase traffic at other crossings which will increase driver frustration. Mr. Johnson notes that the wreck of a 100 car train at the crossing at Pennsylvania Street, just south of the Alafia River not far north of town, would block traffic down through the Nundy Avenue crossing, but would not block the Mottie Road crossing. In the event Mottie Road were closed, however, that same wreck would cause an increase in emergency response time by eight to ten minutes. This could result in elderly people residing on Mottie Road who need life support having no way to get out in the event Roosevelt Road were also blocked by an accident. The likelihood of this combination of events is remote. The closest emergency medical service facility is located at the fire station on Gibsonton Drive. If that one was blocked due to a closing of Mottie and Roosevelt, the next closest facility is in Riverview, north of the Alafia River, or at Apollo Beach, six or seven miles south on US Highway 41. Mr. Johnson contends that safety is not the real reason CSX wants to close the crossing at Mottie Road. He claims the purpose is to save CSX money. No evidence was produced to support that contention however. Mr. Johnson also questions the accuracy of the traffic counts and the other statistics weighed by the Department in its evaluation of the application. The crossings were evaluated in the summer months when the population of Gibsonton is approximately 7,000 people. In the winter months of December through early March, the population doubles to almost 14,000 people, he claims. A large segment of this increase is due to the winter influx of carnival people who have large trucks and show equipment which requires a larger turning radius than a semi-trailer. As many as thirty large rigs come and go in that area each season. He asserts that Nundy Avenue is dangerous for trucks to use because the ditch banks beside the road are narrow and deep. Turning onto Mottie Road is easy. Turning onto Nundy Avenue is not. Again, no evidence was presented in support of this contention. Another objection to the closing of Mottie Road is raised by Robert A. Wood, a senior deacon at the neighborhood church. He contends that the closing will interfere with business in the church located at the corner of Church Street and Payne Avenue, currently accessible to a large portion of the congregation who come to church through Mottie Road. Echoing the concern of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wood cites the occurrence of an accident at Nundy Avenue and Roosevelt Road, and contends that such an accident would make it impossible for people to get out if Mottie Road were blocked. Mr. Wood also notes that the railroad bridge over the Alafia River is low and is opened three or four times a day. When trains are stopped south of the bridge because of this, they block all crossings north of Mottie Road. Mr. Wood opines that Nundy Avenue could not handle the extra traffic caused by the closure of Mottie Road without substantial additional modification of its intersection with US Highway 41. Though Mr. Wood is a retired engineer, he has no expertise in traffic management, and his opinions are based primarily on common sense as opposed to engineering practice. A substantial wave of objection to the closure by the residents in the area has been reduced to writing and submitted to the Department and to CSX though it was not presented at hearing. According to Mrs. Martha J. Johnson, vice-president of Concerned Citizens, these concerns were memorialized and furnished to Mr. Webb who was the Department’s point man at the time. Whereas the Department has been responsive, however, the railroad has not. Ms. Johnson is of the opinion that had CSX been more responsive to the community’s expressed concerns, the matter could have been discussed and resolved in an alternative manner. The controversy has come about because of CSX’s attempts to conform to the goals of the Federal Railroad Administration’s stated goal of closing twenty-five percent of all at-grade crossings by the year 2,000. In 1973, the federal Highway Safety Act emphasized crossing accidents and mandated the identification of hazardous crossings to be corrected or closed. The Act provided money to the states to fix or close these crossings, but these funds are not unlimited. From 1973 to the mid-1990’s the fatality rate dropped by fifty percent as a result of these efforts, but now appears to have leveled off. This has led to the conclusion that lights and gates are not the whole answer. Crossings have to be converted to overpasses or closed. Mottie Road is not active enough a road to justify an overpass, and in addition, the physical layout of the area will not support an overpass. As a result, the logical solution is closure. A legislative study done in 1994 revealed that there is an excessive number of crossings and recommended closing some of them. The instant closing proposal is a part of that effort. It costs the railroad approximately $800 per year to maintain this crossing. If signals were installed, (flashing lights), the yearly maintenance cost would increase to $1,500, and the installation of the lights and gates would cost an initial $100,000 to 150,000. Mr. Wollenzein, the railroad’s public projects engineer, looks at several hundred crossings per year from the standpoint of number of vehicles, speed of vehicles, type of vehicles, train traffic, train speed and the distance of one crossing to the next closest crossing. In the instant case, the vehicular traffic amounts to slightly under 500 vehicles per day, and there are five trains per day through the crossing each way. Trains are limited to a maximum speed of 40 mph through the crossings. In Mr. Wollenzein’s opinion, safety of rail and vehicular traffic would be enhanced if this crossing were closed. Closure would be the absolute prohibition of traffic through the crossing and without traffic, there can be no accidents. He drove the area and concluded there were several practical alternative routes which would compensate for the closing of the Mottie Road crossing. Though he cannot be certain closure would not interfere with emergency vehicle service, he does not believe it would. The fire department is located on Gibsonton Drive, east of US 41, co-existing with the EMS facility. Support for the closing also comes from Jack Webb, formerly with the Department and now a transportation engineer employed by the Texas Transportation Institute. Ninety percent of his work deals with railroads and crossing devices, tying those signals into the traffic system. Mr. Webb looked at the Mottie Road crossing site on several occasions, the first time being in September 1995 when some Department employees were evaluating potential closure sites. The Department decision to permit closure was made only after a thorough study of the site and public hearings to afford the public an opportunity to submit matters relating to the proposed action. When the Department contemplates closing an existing crossing, it considers alternate access, traffic, warning devices and the like. Based on the information he was able to gather on this crossing, Mr. Webb concluded there was a viable alternative to the crossing at Mottie Road; the one at Nundy Avenue. The Mottie Road crossing is a timber crossing which is in fair condition. There was no significant rust on the rails nor cracking of the timbers. There was, however, some minor cracking with wear on the timbers. Nundy Avenue, he opines, can handle from four to five thousand vehicles per day, and in his opinion, closing Mottie Road would not overtax Nundy Avenue. Mr. Webb also calculated the additional response times which would be occasioned by closing Mottie Road. According to his figures, EMS support from the Gibsonton Drive fire station would come off Nundy Avenue. Police response time to a critical point on US Highway 41 just east of the crossing on Mottie Road was 1.5 additional minutes from the south, and 45 seconds from the north. A critical point is that point in the neighborhood where additional response time would be the longest. Mr. Webb also checked with EMS, the fire department and the police about response times. The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department estimated that closure of the Mottie Road crossing might slow up their response times slightly from the south but not when coming from other directions. A fire department official opined that additional response time from the Gibsonton and Riverview stations would be nil, and that there would be an additional three to four minutes to come from Summerfield. EMS officials at the Gibsonton station indicated closure would have no impact upon their operation. The EMS official at the central dispatch office indicated the potential for detriment to their operations would be low even from the other stations. Mottie Road is not on a school bus route and bus transportation was not likely to be affected. At the public hearing on this matter some objections were voiced. As a result, the Department reevaluated all 3 crossings proposed for closing. On two of the three, valid arguments against closure were propounded, but neither related to Mottie Road. In the case of Mottie Road, the railroad agreed to construct a pedestrian crossing there even if the vehicle crossing were closed. The Department also considered the issue of turning radii for trucks as encouraged by the public comment. After visiting the site on several different occasions, and measuring the turning radius availability for trucks with fifty feet between axles, Department officials identified but one problem area located at the intersection of Nundy Avenue and Roosevelt Road, and as a result, indicated that the Department would widen the road there to accommodate the trucks’ turning radii without the need to acquire additional property. The Department also found that there is a shopping center on US Highway 41 about one-half mile south of Mottie Road. The Post office is located there as well, but closing Mottie Road would not have any major impact on access to that facility. Based on all the above, Mr. Webb concluded that closure was appropriate. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order granting permission to CSX Transportation, Inc., to close the at grade vehicular crossing over its track at Mottie Road in Gibsonton, subject to the railroad’s agreement to maintain a pedestrian crossing there and to upgrade the vehicular crossing at Nundy Avenue. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert S. Johnson Qualified Representative Jeanie Johnson Second Vice President Concerned Citizens of Gibsonton Area, Inc. Post Office Box 1304 Gibsonton, Florida 33534 Steven H. Shook, Esquire CSX Transportation, Inc. Law Department, J - 150 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Station Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Attention: Diedre Grubbs Mail Street 58 605 Suwannee Street, Suite 535 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Polk County proposes to relocate Hunt Brothers Road where it crosses the Seaboard Coastline Railroad near Highland Park some 350 feet to the north and to remove the existing roadway approach to the crossing. Hunt Brothers Road is a two lane highway 24 feet wide. The existing road has no signalling devices or warning lights installed other than a railroad crossing sign. Polk County proposes to put back-to-back flashing lights on each side of the road at the relocated crossing. However, the county has no objection to installing whatever signal devices are required at this crossing. The approach to the proposed crossing provides greater safety than exists at the old crossing. The new road exits a curve to the right 250 feet from the tracks. No other obstruction exists at this crossing, however, a second parallel track exists on which cars could be parked within 200 feet of the road. From the evidence adduced this appears to be a relatively short siding and not a track on which trains move. One northbound and one southbound train moves over this track daily. No evidence was presented that stanchions for flashing lights could not be located within 12 feet of the edge of the roadway. There is no record of any accident at the existing crossing and the safety factor of the crossing was not computed and presented at the hearing. The additional initial cost of installing cantilevered flashing lights and gates over the cost of installing roadside flashing lights is some $50,000. No cost benefit ratio or study showing the benefits to be obtained with use of the more expensive system was presented. The principal reason for the District Safety Engineer's recommendation for cantilevered flashing lights and gates was that as the driver of a car negotiated the curve approaching the track his eyes would of necessity be focused on the center line of the road and would better see lights located over the center of the road. He acknowledged however that if lights were on both sides of the road the field of vision of a driver looking straight ahead as he exited the curve would include a light on the left-hand side of the road before one in the middle of the road.
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 an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing and new rail line construction on Jones Road and Georgia Southern and Florida Railroad - MP 243.
Findings Of Fact The following stipulation was agreed upon and written by the parties: "1. As to the necessity of the opening of the said crossing. Westlake is a develop- ment where in excess of $25,000,000 has been spent in a project of the Georgia Southern & Florida Railway, of which $15,000,000 has al- ready been spent to date. Such project has been reviewed and approved by the Jacksonville Planning Board and the public need has been recognized and determined for this residential and light industrial development. As to the facility. The track will be an extension of existing lead track that was originally considered and approved by the De- partment of Transportation crossing Garden Street and is an extension south to the Appli- cant's property lime. Said extension is to serve the need of said development and must be extended across Jones Road to facilitate the services of light industrial purposes. Said track is an extension being two miles in length. Safety and signalization. To meet the required safety standards of the State of Florida, Applicant agrees to install cantalevered flashing lights and bells, side mounted, which are referred to as Type 2 installation. Applicant also agrees to provide sign and pavement markings as specified in MUTCD. The parties agree that said construction of signal device will provide the required public safety. The present anticipated need of such crossing of the Applicant are for one train per day rail traffic in and out. Jones Road is a two-lane rural road with posted speed limits of 45 miles an hour. As to the construction. Said plans have been presented and approved by the City Engineer, Jacksonville, Florida. Applicant agrees to pay for the installation and maintenance of signalization. Approximately $35,000 for the installation and $3,000 per year maintenance. Applicant agrees that it is a quasi-public corporation existing in perpetuity. Applicant agrees to abide by the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation and laws of the State of Florida, as well as the ordinance code of the City of Jacksonville." The facts as outlined in the stipulation of the parties are the Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Issue the required permit. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of July, 1977, 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 Julie H. Kuntz, Esquire American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida
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 Whether a permit should be granted for an at-grade crossing over the Florida East Coast Line Railroad at Mile Post 175.57.
Findings Of Fact 1. The City of Rockledge, Florida is constructing a road in the incorporated limits of the city, known as Rovac Parkway. The road has not been completed, but when completed, it will consist of two ten foot driving lanes running east and two ten foot driving lanes running west with a twelve foot median strip and fourteen foot shoulders. This road-is scheduled to intersect the Florida East Coast Line Railroad at Mile Post 175.57, and would cross the railroad with the same given dimensions as described above. After crossing the railroad, the Rovac Parkway would intersect with U.S.1, also known as State Road There is pending with the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, an application for driveway permit from the Rovac Parkway into U.S.1 (State Road 5), and a copy of the application for permit is found in the City's Exhibit #4 entered into evidence in the hearing. The area for which the application for at-grade crossing pertains is zoned R-2. In the general area of the proposed crossing it is intended that a industrial plant be built by Rovac, Inc., a firm from Maitland, Florida. The Florida East Coast Line Railroad which runs through the City of Rockledge is a single track line which runs roughly north and south and 66 percent of the population of the City of Rockledge, is located west of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad, with the remaining 34 percent found east of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad. The population in the City of Rockledge at the time of the hearing was 11,467 people. If the subject railroad crossing was open and the Rovac Parkway completed, approximately 35 percent of the 66 percent of the population lying west of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad would be using the at-grade crossing. The nearest at-grade crossing with signalization is found 1/2 mile north of the proposed crossing at Barton Road, and the implementation of an at-grade crossing at the subject location would releave the traffic at Barton Road and promote safe crossing of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad found in the City of Rockledge. Immediately north of the proposed at-grade crossing and identified as Mile Post 175.49 is an unprotected at-grade crossing. This crossing services a roofing company which services the public and also services a number of homes in the immediate vicinity of the existing crossing. If the new at-grade crossing at Mile Post 175.57 were permitted, the people who utilize the crossing at Mile Post 175.49 would be serviced by the new crossing. This service would be affected by an extension of an existing road known as Edwards Drive, from its present location to intersect with Rovac Parkway at right angles immediately west of the intersection of the proposed crossing with the Florida East Coast Line Railroad. The land that is necessary for the extension of Edwards Drive has been deeded to the City of Rockledge but has not been dedicated, A and public hearings have been held on the question of the service of those persons in the vicinity at the present at-grade crossing, in addition to public hearings on the extension of Edwards Drive. The location of the proposed crossing and the existing crossing at Mile Post 175.49, and their relationship to other landmarks in the area can be seen through the City's Exhibit #13, admitted into evidence. At the time of hearing, eight north and south bound freight trains and two local freight trains operated in the vicinity of the present crossing at Nile Post 175.49 and the contemplated crossing at Mile Post 175.57. The time schedule for the northbound freight trains is 3:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 5:00 A.M., 9:00 A.M., 2:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. The time schedule for the south bound freight trains is 10:45 A.M., 3:45 P.M., 7:00 P.M., 8:00 P.M., 9:00 P.M., 10:45 P.M., 11:45 P.M. and 6:30 A.M. The two local freight trains run at approximately 4:00 A.M. and 12:00 noon. The 7 speed limit in the area of the crossing at Mile Post 175.49 and the proposed crossing at Mile Post 175.57 is 60 fPH for the railroad. There is a left curve approximately 1,550 feet south of the proposed crossing. All parties to the hearing feel that it is necessary to have signalization at the proposed at-grade crossing. The witness for the City acknowledged the need for such an arrangement. The spokesman for the Railroad felt that the crossing should be controlled by an automatic system with flashing lights, ringing bells, and gates, which was train activated, and the witness of the Department of Transportation felt that the safety equipment at the proposed at-grade crossing should be a Type IV, with cantilevered flashing lights, ringing bells and gates. The same witnesses stressed that the existing crossing at Mile Post 175.49 was not signalized and therefore was much more dangerous than a signalized crossing, such as the proposed crossing at Mile Post 175.57. Exhibits which were offered in the course of the hearing which address the propriety of opening a crossing at Mile Post 175.57 and closing the crossing at Mile Post 175.49 were as follows: Exhibit #1, by the City, is a map of the City of Rockledge; Exhibit #2, by the City, is a comprehensive land use plan of the City; Exhibit #3, by the City, is a resolution of the City Council, City of Rockledge, proposing the opening of the crossing at Mile Post 175.57; Exhibit #6, by the City, a traffic count at the Barton crossing; Exhibit #11, by the City, a resolution of the Brevard Economic Development Commission concerning the impact of such a development; and Exhibit #12, by the City, a drawing of the extension of Edwards Drive and the construction of the Rovac Parkway, together with the present crossing and the proposed crossing.
Recommendation It is recommended that the permit be granted, to open the subject crossing, utilizing safety equipment of a type addressed in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Walter C. Sheppard, Esquire City Attorney, for Rockledge 115 Harrison Street Cocoa, Florida 32922 Charles B. Evans, Esquire Florida East Coast Line Railroad One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Philip Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operation Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
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.
