Findings Of Fact The City is an incorporated city within the State of Florida. The subject railroad crossing on South Caledonia Street is located within the city limits of Marianna. The DOT is the agency of state government which is charged with the regulation of railroad crossings, to include the determination of whether a crossing should be opened or closed. The CSX is the railroad company which owns the railroad and railroad crossing in question and which may have to pay a portion of the costs of any improvements to the crossing. South Caledonia Street is constructed along a section line and runs due south through Marianna connecting US 90, a major east-west arterial highway, with the southern portion of Marianna and its rural environs as it becomes Highway 73 at its intersection with Jefferson Street. See Railroad's Exhibit 1. South Caledonia Street, one of ten north-south streets which crosses the railroad within the limits of Marianna, is the only one which runs straight south over the tracks to Interstate 10. South Caledonia Street is one of the four streets which provides transit over the tracks in the eastern portion of Marianna. In order from east to west, Jefferson Street, Green Street, Caledonia or South Caledonia Street (the one in question), and West Caledonia Street run north and south and provide the principal links between US 90 and South Street, in the eastern portion of the City. South Street is a major east-west street in the southern part of the City. The other east-west roads south of US 90 are Jackson Street north of the railroad; Pearl Street running west from South Caledonia between the railroad and South Street; and unpaved Franklin Street running eastward immediately north of the railroad between Caledonia and Green Streets and running westward south of the railroad between Caledonia and West Caledonia Streets. South Caledonia and West Caledonia Streets are principally residential from South Street to one block south of the railroad tracks, and commercial north of the railroad tracks. DOT's Exhibit 1 is an annotated aerial photograph of this portion of the City showing the major roads named above and the daily traffic counts on them. In recent years, the railroad crossings on West Caledonia, Green, and Jefferson Streets have been upgraded to current standards. The crossing on Caledonia Street is not improved, and the street is in very poor condition between Jackson and Pearl Streets; however, planned resurfacing of the street has been delayed while this case is litigated because upgrading the crossing will require recontouring of Caledonia Street. The poor condition of Caledonia Street has reduced traffic on the street over the railroad and has caused the existing traffic to go slower. There has never been a train-car accident at the South Caledonia Street crossing. Recontouring Caledonia Street at the railroad crossing will eliminate or reduce access to A.B. Williams Concrete and Block Company from Caledonia Street; however, there is access to the company from Green Street. The owner supports keeping the crossing open even if it restricts access to his business. Recontouring Caledonia Street would make it feasible for heavy trucks to move over the crossing on South Caledonia Street which is Highway 73 south of its intersection with Jefferson Street. Currently, the majority of the heavy truck traffic is using West Caledonia to move south and turning left on South Street to come back to Caledonia Street and out Highway 73. The intersection of West Caledonia and South Street is not well suited for such traffic. It will cost at least $250,000 to upgrade the existing crossing. It costs $612 each year to maintain the upgraded crossing. Letting the crossing remain open will have no effect on the operations of the railroad. There was no evidence presented on the costs of paving Franklin Street or the unpaved portions of the railroad right-of-way to enable traffic stopped at the railroad to move east and west north of the tracks or westward south of the tracks. There is no available route eastward south of the tracks. No evidence on the traffic count over the crossing was presented. The DOT did not take a traffic count over the crossing. If the closure of the South Caledonia Street crossing increases the traffic on Jefferson Street, currently 4,000 vehicles per day, to 5,000 vehicles per day, the Jefferson Street crossing will have to be upgraded to have bells, lights and gates. A significant increase in traffic count on Jefferson Street is possible given the current use rate of Caledonia Street north and south of the railroad, which is known. No evidence was presented on the cost of upgrading the Jefferson Street crossing. Caledonia Street is not used by emergency vehicles or school buses, and there are viable alternatives for emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks if this crossing were eliminated. However, closing this crossing will create a cul-de-sac north and south of the existing crossing on Caledonia Street because of the absence of paved east-west through streets. As indicated above, it will be very inconvenient and costly to create east-west links to eliminate these cul-de-sacs. In spite of the poor condition of the crossing and the road surface and the availability of alternatives, Caledonia Street carries more traffic than does Green Street which has had its crossing upgraded. Caledonia Street, upon which the subject crossing is located, is the only straight north-south route from US 90 to Highway 73. The preservation of this route for the future must be considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that CSX, Inc.'s Petition to close the public vehicular crossing on Caledonia Street in Marianna, Florida, be denied, and said crossing be kept open. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ben C. Watts Interim Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Michael D. Mee, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Stephen H. Shook, Esquire 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Post Office Box 793 Marianna, Florida 32446 ================================================================= AGENCY REMAND ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Petitioners, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 89-3557 CITY OF MARIANNA, Respondent. / ORDER REMANDING CAUSE FOR RECONSIDERATION The Recommended Order was issued in this cause on November 14, 1989. On December 4, 1989, the Department of Transportation filed Agency's Exceptions to Recommended Order, copy of which is attached. A review of the complete record has been made. The Department of Transportation remands the instant cause to Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, for reconsideration based on the following: The Recommended Order states in Finding of Fact Number 9 that the closure or the South Caledonia Street crossing would increase the traffic on Jefferson Street resulting in one upgrading of the Jefferson Street crossing by the addition of bells, lights and gates. The finding is not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. At the hearing below, testimony was adduced that the Jefferson Street crossing has already been upgraded with bells, lights and gates. (Transcript pages 99 - 100) Since the Hearing Officer relied, in part, upon this incorrect factual determination, the case is remanded to the Hearing Officer for reconsideration pursuant to the facts as corrected. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the instant cause is remanded, for twenty days following receipt of this Order, to Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings for reconsideration. DONE AND ORDERED, this 21st day of December, 1989. BEN G. WATTS, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen H. Shook, Esquire 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Post Office Box 793 Marianna Florida 32446 Michael D. Mee Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ================================================================= ORDER ON REMAND =================================================================
Findings Of Fact By application the Florida East Coast Railway Company seeks a permit to close an existing at-grade public railroad crossing located at Sebastian/Bay Street, Roseland in Indian River County, Florida. There exists a public at-grade railroad crossing 681 feet immediately to the south of the subject crossing at the intersection with Roseland Road. This crossing is protected by a full complement of automatic warning devices, consisting of flashing lights, ringing bells and gate. Roseland Road is a paved highway and well travelled. The subject crossing is an old crossing having been established approximately in 1907. There exists a visibility factor adverse to train and motoring public as a result of an elevation of approximately four (4) feet and of natural growth but there as been no known crossing accident in over some seventy (70) years. Traffic over this railroad crossing is not heavy. There exists a growing residential community to the west and east of this railroad crossing. The Sebastian River Medical Center (hospital) exists on the east. Fire protection for this area exists on the east. Testimony of users and letters oppose the closing of the crossing because the historical value of the railroad crossing, the location of the crossing for fire protection purposes, the location of the crossing for the health and welfare due to the location of the Sebastian River Medical Center, the only hospital located in the north end of the county; and the ease and convenience for the Roseland community reaching the main thoroughfare known as U.S. #1. The public crossing on Roseland Road is a busy crossing serving a much travelled road and is well signalized. In order to use this crossing it is essential to enter a busy highway. The people belonging to the church and the personnel of the medical facility use the Sebastian/Bay Street crossing; school children use it and the residents of the Roseland area, many of whom are elderly, use it.
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted by the Florida Department of Transportation for a public-at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Section 55000- 6607, State Road (Laurel Oak Drive) Leon County, Parcel 1 (XS0-H) SCL Railroad MP SPA-809.
Findings Of Fact A railroad grade crossing application was submitted by Henry G. Hanson, County Engineer, Leon County, Florida, for a public-at-grade rail highway opening by new roadway construction. The crossing location is in the unincorporated municipality of Woodville, Florida. The local popular name of the street is Laurel Oak Drive. The railroad company is Seaboard Coastline Railroad and the mile post distance and direction is 1,5534 ft. south of SPA- 809. The application stated that "Prior to construction the Board of County Commissioners will adopt the necessary resolutions for the maintenance of the crossing." The cost estimate as indicated on the application was $20,000.00. The application arose as a result of a proposed low cost or rent subsidy type housing development which is proposed to be constructed in the Woodville area in southern Leon County, Florida. The proposed subdivision is to be called "Woodlands" an area which lies west of the street called Tallahassee Street. Between Tallahasse and the proposed subdivision runs the Seaboard Coastline railroad. The subject land is presently owned by a group of people for whom Mr. John Butler is a representative. The proposed subdivision is a cooperative effort by the landowners represented by Mr. Butler, the Tallahassee Housing Authority represented by Mr. Calvin 0gburn and the Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida. Leon County is involved inasmuch as the subdivision as proposed would be dedicated to Leon County, Florida, whereby Leon County would take over maintenance and ownership of the roadways including that portion of the roadway crossing the railroad. The application for the subject crossing was made by Leon County as the ultimate owner of the crossing. At the date of this hearing there is no subdivision but plans for a subdivision have been submitted. The plans are for a low cost housing which was described as houses that would cost between 20 and 23 thousand dollars ($20,000-$23,000) including the cost of the lot and would be approximately 900 to 1000 square feet. The proposal is for 53 lots each within an approximate 75 foot frontage. The Department of Community Affairs administers the rural land fund which is a 2.5 million dollar fund to provide lost cost lots. This department lends money to local governments, housing authorities or small communities and rural areas to buy land and to cause it to be developed as in the subject cause. The position of the Department of Community Affairs is to approve or deny a loan to the Tallahassee Housing Authority. A plat of the proposed subdivision was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs as part of their application for $199,000.00 which would be used to buy the land and developed it. There is no access to the land on which the proposed subdivision would be built except at the proposed site for the subject crossing. The 75 foot lots would cost approximately $3,760.00 each. There are two trains per day on unscheduled runs using the subject railroad tracks. The estimation is that there would be between 300 to 350 vehicles per day using the crossing. The speed of the train is approximately 25 miles per hour. The two lane rural road with 6 foot shoulders as proposed would cross the railroad track. The recommendations of the District Safety Engineer for the Third District employed by the Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, is that a type 3 installation is required. The installation is roadside flashing lights with bells. A representative of the railroad read the following statement from Mr. Tom Hutchinson, Vice President of Maintenance of Seaboard Coastline Railroad, "It will be the railroad's position in this application that there arc no objection to what is proposed with the provision that automatic warning devices are installed and maintained at the expense of the applicant and with further conditions that any changes or alterations or improvements of the cost will be borne by the applicant." The Hearing Officer further finds: That if the proposed subdivision is in fact built and homes sold there would be a need for the proposed railroad crossing. That there would be a need for the proposed railroad crossing prior to the completion of the subdivision inasmuch as there would be a large amount of traffic during the construction of this subdivision. Leon County would maintain the crossing. The safety devices as recommended by the Florida Department of Transportation which is flashing lights and ringing bells is necessary for the safety of those traveling to and from the proposed subdivision. A simple cross buck would be inadequate for the safety of those living or working in the proposed subdivision.
Recommendation Grant the permit upon approval of the project. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Earl O. Black, Esquire County Engineer's Office Leon County Courthouse Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Henry G. Hanson, County Engineer Leon County Courthouse Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. G. S. Burleson, Sr,, P.E. Assistant State Utility Engineer (RRs) Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation should issue a permit for the installation of a 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 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 railroad crossing in the vicinity of the S.C.L. Railroad Company Milepost, 775 feet North of Milepost SW-873 on the alignment of 12th Avenue, East, Bradenton, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony of witnesses for the Petitioner and Respondents and the arguments of those witnesses appearing and of counsel for the Department of Transportation on the issues and considering the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner, City of Bradenton, Florida is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, duly authorized to establish and maintain city streets within the boundaries of the City of Bradenton, Florida. The City of Bradenton has heretofore filed an application with the Dept. of Transportation of the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 338.21 Florida Statutes for permission to establish a graded railroad crossing for 12th Avenue East between 9th and 10th street East, a city street, proposed to intersect the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracks approximately 775 feet north of Milepost SW-873 of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. 12th Avenue would serve that portion of the city which has experienced rapid development and substantial increase in population. An existing crossing on 13th Avenue was technically closed by the city but in fact both public and private use is made of the crossing. The 13th avenue crossing is hazardous as now used and opening a crossing as proposed on 12th Avenue would take most of the pedestrian and vehicular traffic off 13th Avenue, and reroute it to 12th Avenue where the visibility is not restricted. The nearest public crossing is 9th Avenue between seven hundred and eight hundred feet away from 13th Avenue and a crossing is needed nearby. The parties agree that the 12th Avenue crossing is needed and that the 13th Avenue crossing is hazardous. The 13th Avenue crossing will remain a private crossing. The city and the railroad company agree: That a permit should be granted for the 12th Avenue crossing. That the crossing involves a switching operation of ten slow movements or less a day with no night traffic. That heavy use is involved only at the Tropicana plant work-time when employees are going to work or after work. Employees now use the 13th Avenue crossing. That a cross-buck, together with a flagging operation, is sufficient signalization. That a cross-buck together with a flagging operation will still be use at the 13th Avenue private crossing. That the proposed crossing is desirable and necessary and the proposed signalization is sufficient to protect the general public. The city agrees to bear the expense of installing the signalization and maintaining such crossing. The Hearing Officer further finds: The proposed crossing is necessary and desirable. The signalization is adequate as planned, to protect the public. The Petitioner city needs the crossing. The respondent railway company does not oppose the opening providing signalization and mainte- nance be provided by others. The respondent Department of Transportation safety engineer recommends that the permit be granted to open the crossing conditioned on: (a) the use of a flagman, (b) compliance by the city with the Manual on uniform control Devices 2B-42, 2C-31, 3B-16 (painting the railroad crossing sign on pavement, use of railroad warning disk, providing cross-bucks), (c) minimum sight distance, as agreed on by the railroad and Department of Transportation standards, (d) the crossing being constructed and maintained by other than the Department of Transportation. The city Petitioner has agreed to install cross-bucks and to maintain the crossing in safe and usable conditions.
The Issue Whether the opening of a public highway-rail grade crossing at the proposed intersection of Tyson Avenue and Bridge Street in Hillsborough County, Florida, meets the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-57.012(2)(a)(1-3).
Findings Of Fact The Department has authority over public highway- railroad grade crossings in Florida, including the authority to issue permits for the opening and closing of crossings in accordance with section 335.141(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ and rule 14-57.012. New Port owns a 52-acre waterfront parcel (New Port parcel) in Tampa, Florida, bordered to the North by Gandy Boulevard, the east by Westshore Boulevard, to the south by Tyson Avenue and to the west by Tampa Bay, in an area known as Rattlesnake Point. In 2007, the City of Tampa amended its comprehensive plan to encourage the redevelopment of Rattlesnake Point from industrial to a residential/commercial mixed-use waterfront community. The City re-zoned the New Port parcel through PD-A Zoning 07-48 to authorize redevelopment of the parcel in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan, which includes residential, office, commercial, and hotel uses. CSX owns and operates a rail spur that crosses over Tyson Avenue, just west of Westshore Boulevard and then runs parallel to the north side of Tyson Avenue (the Henry Spur). CSX operates trains, averaging five cars in length, along the Henry Spur transporting goods to and from the two remaining industrial users located on Rattlesnake Point. The trains generally travel between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., Sunday through Thursday, at a speed between five and ten miles per hour. Vehicular traffic is stopped by automatic crossbars for approximately one and one-half minutes when the train crosses the intersection at Westshore and Tyson. The Henry Spur prevents public access to the New Port parcel from the south at Tyson Avenue. Two private highway-rail grade crossings over the Henry Spur allowed construction equipment to access the New Port parcel from the south during land clearing. As a condition of the New Port re-zoning, the City required that Bridge Street, a north-south road located in the northern portion of the parcel, be extended to provide a north- south corridor through the entire parcel beginning at Gandy Boulevard and terminating at Tyson Avenue. PD-A zoning 07-48 provides, at item 32, that “[t]he property Owner/Developer shall, at no cost to the City, construct/reconstruct and extend Bridge Street from Gandy Boulevard to Tyson Avenue as part of the redevelopment of the site.” The re-zoning further provides that Bridge Street would be a public right-of-way, deeded to the City, and after obtaining certificates of occupancies for retail, office, residential and hotel space, “the developer will be required to connect Bridge Street, from Price Avenue to Tyson Avenue, with Transportation approval, across CSX property, at the developer’s sole expense.” In 2007, CSX, the Department, the City of Tampa, New Port Tampa Bay CDD, and Ecoventure New Port II, LLC, entered into a Stipulation of Parties (Stipulation) to allow a new public highway-rail grade crossing over the Henry Spur at Bridge Street and Tyson Avenue (Crossing). The Stipulation authorized the Crossing upon the permanent closure of the two private highway- rail grade crossings along the Henry spur, and two public highway-rail grade crossings at 5th Avenue and 35th Street in Tampa, Florida. The Stipulation waived all administrative hearing rights provided that all covenants of the agreement were met within 24 months of execution of the Stipulation. The two public crossings were closed in accordance with the Stipulation, but due to changes in the Tampa real estate market, the New Port project did not immediately advance. The crossing at Bridge Street and Tyson Avenue was not constructed within 24 months and the Stipulation expired. Ecoventure New Port II, LLC’s, interest in the New Port parcel was later assumed by New Port Tampa Bay Holdings and interest in the project’s development was re-ignited. On December 18, 2014, the City of Tampa, submitted a Railroad Grade Crossing Application seeking the opening of a highway-rail grade crossing at Bridge Street and Tyson Avenue, which is the same location previously authorized by the Stipulation. CSX did not agree to an amended stipulation to allow for the opening of the Crossing. Laura Regalado has managed the Department’s rail crossing opening-closure program since August 2014. Ms. Regalado received and reviewed the City of Tampa’s application for the Crossing. Ms. Regalado, in February 2015, visited the locations referenced in the application and examined Tyson Avenue where the Crossing was proposed and the two private crossings that were to be closed. The private crossings were unfinished, rough surfaces and had no gates, bells, or flashing lights to warn of oncoming trains. The proposed public Crossing would be required to have an active warning system of gates, bells, and flashing lights. Ms. Regalado concluded that although any new crossing presents a potential danger to the traveling public, the overall safety of the area would be improved by the opening of one gated crossing, in exchange for the closing of two public crossings and the closing of the two unsecured private crossings. To further improve safety in the area, the Department required improved signalization at two additional public crossings as a condition of approval of the Notice of Intent to Permit. Ms. Regalado also examined three side streets to the west of Westshore Avenue for their potential as alternative access routes to the New Port property. The three streets-– McElroy, Paul and Price-–currently accommodate apartments, single-family houses, and light industrial uses. They are narrow side streets ranging from 16 to 18 feet wide, with on-street parking and drainage ditches. Ms. Regalado determined that the streets were not adequate alternative routes as they could not adequately support two-way traffic, construction vehicles, and emergency vehicles. At buildout, the New Port development is anticipated to have an annual average daily traffic (AADT) count of 16,654 vehicles entering and exiting the development. Bridge Street at Gandy Boulevard is expected to be a primary access point at the northern portion of the New Port parcel. The Gandy Boulevard and Bridge Street intersection was reconstructed after 2008 to provide westbound traffic accessing the New Port parcel a left turn lane onto Bridge Street. Eastbound Gandy Boulevard traffic can turn right onto Bridge Street to access the New Port parcel. Vehicles leaving the New Port parcel from Bridge Street are prohibited from turning left (to go west), but can make a right onto Gandy Boulevard to travel east and can then turn at the signalized intersection at Gandy and Westshore to travel north, south or west (after making a u-turn). For City approval of the New Port project, additional access points were required to accommodate westbound traffic and allow for evacuation and traffic flow. Plans approved by the City required Bridge Street be extended across the Henry Spur to Tyson Avenue as the main north-south thoroughfare for the development. Tyson Avenue is a 24-foot wide east-west roadway designed for two-way traffic and heavy vehicles. The corner of Tyson and Westshore meets the criteria for signalization, which would allow controlled turns from Tyson onto Westshore. Once northbound on Westshore, vehicles desiring to proceed in a westbound direction can turn left on Gandy Boulevard. Westshore Boulevard is approximately a half-mile long between Gandy and Tyson, has one north bound lane, one south bound lane, and a center lane. Northbound traffic on Westshore frequently backs up, even in the middle of the day, from Gandy Boulevard past McElroy, Paul and Price Avenues to as far south as Tyson Avenue. To address some of the congestion, the City has designed and budgeted for a dual left turn lane from Westshore onto Gandy Boulevard. The dual turn lanes will extend south of McElroy Avenue. The City has classified Westshore Boulevard as a failed roadway because it is unable to accommodate traffic volumes that currently exist. Consequently, the City denied the developer’s initial request to have Price Avenue be a gateway to the development as it would generate additional traffic entering directly onto Westshore Boulevard at an already congested point. Of the current side streets providing access to Westshore Boulevard between Gandy Boulevard and Tyson Avenue, Paul Avenue will not be extended to connect to the New Port parcel and Hendry Street (referred to as Bridge Street on Google maps) cannot provide public access as it is a private drive with lateral parking. As for McElroy Avenue, only southbound right turns will be allowed onto Westshore Boulevard due to the installation of the dual turn lanes for northbound traffic on Westshore Boulevard. Price Avenue will accommodate southbound traffic making right turns into and out of the New Port parcel, but spacing requirements prevent placement of a traffic signal at Price and Westshore, so northbound vehicles would have difficulty making a left turn onto Price Avenue. Furthermore, the proximity of Price Avenue to Tyson Avenue, and the near chronic congestion on Westshore Boulevard, would make a left turn leaving Price Avenue onto Westshore Boulevard exceptionally dangerous. Without the Crossing at Tyson Avenue, Price Avenue is expected to have a queue of 16.8 cars waiting to access Westshore Boulevard during peak morning hours, and a queue of 23.7 cars during peak afternoon hours. CSX contends that an entry point, identified as Retail Drive, to the New Port parcel could be an alternative route instead of the connection at Bridge Street and Tyson. Retail Drive connects to Westshore Boulevard at the southeastern portion of the New Port parcel. New Port is under contract to develop a 12-acre parcel at that location as a multi-family apartment complex. To access the apartment complex, the plans contemplate Retail Drive as a gated, private driveway connected to Westshore Boulevard. Due to spacing requirements, traffic signals could not be constructed at both the intersections of Westshore Boulevard and Retail Drive and Westshore Boulevard and Tyson Avenue. Tyson Avenue has already met the requirements for a traffic signal at the Westshore Boulevard intersection and is preferred by the City for signalization because it would serve all of the traffic on Rattlesnake Point, instead of a single development. Absent a traffic signal, vehicles leaving Retail Drive are only permitted to make a right turn to head south on Westshore Boulevard. As only ten percent of the traffic leaving the New Port development is expected to travel south, Retail Drive, if reconstructed as a through road, would not provide an acceptable alternative route for traffic leaving the New Port development. The Bridge Street extension over the Henry Spur is essential to the City’s plan for redevelopment of the New Port development. The Bridge Street extension provides a north-south corridor parallel to Westshore Boulevard that allows traffic to enter onto Gandy Boulevard to the north and Tyson Boulevard to the south. CSX agreed to the Crossing in 2007, but now objects and contends that the situation has changed. Specifically, CSX contends that the amount of rail traffic has increased from an estimated five train movements per week to an estimated ten train movements per week. The trains are still of short duration, with crossings taking approximately a minute and one-half, twice a night, four or five times a week. CSX also indicates it has felt increased pressure from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to decrease its overall number of crossings in Florida. CSX has not approached FRA for its position on allowing this particular crossing to open, and the related offset of the closing of four CSX crossings. CSX expressed concern that they could be subject to FRA fines if the number of crossings is not reduced, but offered no credible evidence in support of this contention.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the opening of a public railroad-highway grade crossing at Bridge Street and Tyson Avenue in Hillsborough County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 2016.
Recommendation It is recommended that the permit be granted and that the crossing be opened subject to the type of crossing protection equipment agreed on by the parties DONE and ORDERED this 23 day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Humes, Jr., Attorney Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Ralph B. Wilson, Attorney St. Lucie County Post Office Box 700 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 George L. Waas, Attorney Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Southwest 5th Avenue and 2,625 feet north of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Foot 731 in Williston should be opened.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, City of Williston, applied for a permit to construct an at-grade railroad crossing 2,625 feet north of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Post SR-731 and Southwest Fifth Avenue, if extended, in the City of Williston for the purpose of providing access from an undeveloped but intended residential area of the City. There are two (2) Public at-grade crossings in the area. One is located 1,360 feet north of proposed crossing at Southwest First Avenue and one is located 625 feet south of the proposed crossing at Southwest Seventh Avenue. The subject railroad track is a lead track used for providing service to railroad custoners located north of proposed crossing in the City of Williston. Approximately six (6) train movements occur each week and the maximum speed is 25 miles per hour. There is a heavy stand of trees in the Southwest quadrant of the proposed crossing. Southwest First Avenue runs east and west to the south of the existing Williston High School and north of an elementary school and, although there have been discussions as to whether the street should be abandoned if the proposed road Southwest Fifth Avenue is opened, no official action has been taken. There has been no detailed planning by the City as to the following: Where the Southwest Fifth Avenue as proposed should connect to Southeast Fifth Avenue across the proposed railroad crossing; The cost of construction and maintenance of the crossing and the cost of warning devices that might be required at the crossing and the financing of same; What the estimated traffic count would be across the proposed crossing from the hospital that is in the vicinity and from the schools in the vicinity; Whether the railroad company would grant an easement for the crossing across the railroad property; and Whether a road could or should be built paralleling the railroad and connecting with an existing crossing. Is is the further finding of the Hearing Officer: There has been insufficient planning on the part of the Petitioner City of Williston as to the use or hazards in the proposed crossing; There are insufficient fact available to the Hearing Officer to make a determination as to the necessity or the safety of the proposed crossing; and The Florida Department of Transportation recommended that it proposed crossing was opened, the maximum protection should be a minimum of flashing lights, ringing bells, proper signing and pavement markings. No other recommendations were made.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, CSX Transportation, Inc., is entitled to close an at-grade railroad crossing on Country Lane in Santa Rosa County, Florida?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. CSX Transportation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "CSX"), operates a railroad which runs essentially east-west through Santa Rosa County, Florida. The Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is charged pursuant to Section 335.141, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-46.003, Florida Administrative Code, with responsibility for authorizing the closure of public railroad crossings. The Respondents who appeared at the final hearing of these cases live and their addresses in Santa Rosa County are as follows: Clyde L. & Susan S. Godwin 3321 Hudson Bend India B. McLeod 900 North 21st Avenue Earl W. & Zanola R. Gatewood 1361 Tinsley Road Lucille Williams Gatewood 5212 Tinsley Road Mary W. Henderson 3480 Country Lane Clifton D. & Christa Childers 1013 North 16th Avenue Respondents John F. and Katherine H. Edwards live at 2401 Old Military Road, Mobile, Alabama. They own a house on Santa Cruz Boulevard in Santa Rosa County. CSX's Application. On or about April 29, 1993, CSX filed a Railroad Grade Crossing Application (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Department. DOT Exhibit 1. Pursuant to the Application, CSX sought permission from the Department to close an at-grade railroad crossing (hereinafter referred to as the "Crossing"), located on Country Lane, at railroad mile post SP 664.46 in Santa Rosa County, southwest of Milton, Florida. The Crossing has been designated as "339760G" by the Department. The Crossing runs in a northeast-southwest direction. An "at-grade" railroad crossing is a railroad crossing where the railroad track and a road crossing meet at the same plane or grade. On or about September 24, 1993, the Department issued an Intent to Close Permit approving the Application. DOT Exhibit 2. The Respondents timely filed petitions challenging this proposed agency action. The Crossing. Approximately 8 freight trains use the Crossing daily. Additionally, 2 passenger trains use the Crossing three times a week. The freight trains carry hazardous materials. The evidence, however, failed to prove how often. During a twenty-four hour period, approximately 112 vehicles drove over the Crossing on Country Lane. There are no flashing lights or gates located at the Crossing. There are no plans in the immediate future to add gates or lights at the Crossing. Existing warnings at the Crossing consist of a round, yellow warning sign and a "crossbuck" warning sign just to the north and to the south of the Crossing. These signs, because of trees, are not visible to vehicular traffic on Country Lane until just before reaching the railroad tracks. Traveling to the south on Country Lane, there is little visibility of the tracks due to vegetation. Traveling to the north on Country Lane, there is slightly more visibility. There are sharp drops in elevation on both sides of Country Lane immediately to the north of the railroad tracks. A vehicle could easily become stuck if it were to drive off the road at this location. Passenger trains travel at a maximum speed of 59 miles per hour at the Crossing and freight trains travel at a maximum speed of 49 miles per hour or 25 miles per hour it carrying hazardous material. The Area Surrounding the Crossing. The road that intersects the Crossing is Country Lane: Country Lane runs north-south from County Road 191A in the north to Santa Cruz Boulevard in the south. Country Lane is approximately 1.1 miles long from County Road 191A to Santa Cruz Boulevard. It is approximately .15 mile from County Road 191A to the Crossing. Country Lane is paved from County Road 191A to just south of the Crossing. The rest of Country Lane is a dirt road. Country Lane is approximately 12 to 14 feet wide. There are approximately 14 homes on Country Lane and two short roads that begin and end on County Lane: Hudson Bend Road and Solor Drive. Approximately .20 mile south of 191A, Country Lane intersects with Tinsley Road: Tinsley Road is a poorly paved county road, approximately 12 feet wide. Tinsley Road runs east-west from Country Lane in the east to County Road 281 in the west. There are approximately six houses on Tinsley Road. County Road 191A is a two-lane, paved road that runs northeast- southwest. To the northeast, County Road 191A goes to Milton. To the southwest, County Road 191A intersects with County Road 281. County Road 191A is a two-lane, paved road, approximately 20 to 22 feet wide with 6 feet wide shoulders. County Road 281 runs north-south, from County Road 191A in the north, to the south over a bridge spanning Mulatto Bay, and then runs to the east to County Road 281A. County Road 281 is a two-lane, paved road, approximately 20 to 22 feet wide with 6 feet wide shoulders. County Road 281A runs north-south. In the south, County Road 281A intersects with Interstate 10. In the north, County Road 281A intersects with County Road 191A. It is also connected to County Road 191A, south of its northern intersection with County Road 191A, by County Road 191B. County Road 281A crosses the CSX railroad line that runs to the Crossing. County Road 281A crosses the railroad line by an overpass. Access to Country Lane and the Surrounding Area. Vehicles, including emergency vehicles, coming from the northeast down County Road 191A may access the fourteen houses located on Country Lane, Hudson Bend Road and Solor Drive by using Country Lane and crossing the railroad at the Crossing. If the Crossing is closed, vehicles coming from the northeast down County Road 191A are required to travel to County Road 281, go south on County Road 281 across the railroad to Tinsley Road and then east on Tinsley Road to Country Lane (hereinafter referred to as the "Alternative Route") to access thirteen of the houses on Country Lane, Hudson Bend Road and Solor Drive (the fourteenth house is located to the north of the railroad). It is approximately one fourth of a mile from the intersection of County Road 191A and Country Lane around to Country Lane south of the Crossing via the Alternative Route. Driving the speed limit, it takes just over one minute to drive the Alternative Route. The Alternative Route can accommodate the additional traffic that would result from closure of the Crossing. Country Lane may also be accessed from the south by taking County Road 281A to County Road 281, traveling west and then north to either Santa Cruz Boulevard or Tinsley Road, and then east to Country Lane. There is a fire station located northeast of Country Lane on County Road 191A. The fire station is approximately 1 mile from the junction of County Road 281 and County Road 191A. It takes approximately 1 minute and 36 seconds to drive, at the posted speed, from the fire station to Country Lane. It takes approximately 2 minutes and 30 seconds to drive from the fire station to Country Lane using the Alternative Route. If the railroad crossing at County Road 281 were closed, traffic coming from the northeast may return northeast on County Road 191A, east on County Road 191B, south on County Road 281A, west and then north over Mulatto Bay on County Road 281 to Santa Cruz Boulevard or Tinsley (hereinafter referred to as the "Southern Route). From the fire station to Country Lane via this route is approximately 4.7 miles and takes approximately 6 minutes and 18 seconds to drive at the posted speed. From the north of the railroad crossing on County Road 281 via this route is approximately 6.2 miles. Emergency vehicles would not be restricted to traveling at the posted speed limits. The potential for a vehicle finding access to Country Lane and the surrounding area blocked from the north because of a train halted at the railroad crossing will be increased if the Crossing is closed. Currently, if the Crossing is blocked by a train, vehicles can use the Alternative Route and, if the crossing on County Road 281 is blocked by a train, vehicles can use the Crossing. If the Crossing is closed and the crossing at County Road 281 is blocked, vehicles may be required to use the Southern Route. The evidence failed to prove how often this happens. If the Crossing is not closed and both the Crossing and the crossing on County Road 281 are blocked by a train at the same time, there will be no access from the north and vehicles may still have to use the Southern Route. At least one of the Respondents has witnessed both crossings being blocked at the same time. Although trains may block the crossing at County Road 281 for 10 to 15 minutes, they do so rarely. It is more likely that traffic may be blocked from 5 to 10 minutes while train cars are being dropped off at a plant located on a spur of the railroad located to the west of the Crossing. If the Crossing is closed and both the crossing at County Road 281 and the bridge on County Road 281 are blocked, residents will not be able to evacuate from Country Lane or the surrounding area. The evidence, however, failed to prove the probability of such an event or the probability that residents would have to be evacuated. The evidence failed to prove that, while there may be some inconvenience to the Respondents if the Crossing is closed, the inconvenience will be significant. Two acceptable, alternative routes for access to the area exist and those routes can handle any additional traffic caused by closure of the Crossing. Safety. Railroad crossings are potentially dangerous. If an accident takes place at a railroad crossing, the adverse consequences are, more often than not, extremely severe. The evidence in this case failed to prove that there have actually been accidents at the Crossing. Comments concerning possible accidents at the Crossing were not made during sworn testimony. Because of the conditions at the Crossings (lack of warning devices, excessive vegetation causing lack of visibility, and the poor condition of the road surface), the potential for an accident at the Crossing is high. Cost Required to Improve the Crossing. It would cost in excess of $80,000.00 to add warning lights and gates to the Crossing. It would cost approximately $20,000.00 to improve and widen Country Lane. Emergency Vehicles. Emergency vehicles which may need to access the area south of the Crossings will come from the northeast toward Milton. If the Crossing is closed, emergency vehicles can use the Alternative Route or the Southern Route. The evidence failed to prove that response times will be significantly impacted by closure of the Crossings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order dismissing the petitions in this case and approving the application of CSX Transportation, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1994. APPENDIX Case Numbers 93-6253 through 93-6262 CSX Transportation, Inc. and Mr. Edwards have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Edwards' Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 5 and 9. Accepted in 9. Accepted in 11, 23-25 and 35. 4. Accepted in 10-11, 16, 21, 32, 35-37 and 40-42. 5. Accepted in 38-19 and hereby accepted. The CSX's Proposed Findings of Fact These paragraphs are a correct summary of events at the final hearing. See 17-35. The last sentence of the first paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last two sentences of the second paragraph are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 29. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Stephen H. Shook, Esquire CSX Transportation Law Department 500 Water Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Clyde L. & Susan S. Godwin, pro se 3321 Hudson Bend Milton, Florida 32583 India B. McLeod, pro se 900 N. 21st Avenue Milton, Florida 32583 Earl W. & Zanola R. Gatewood, pro se 1361 Tinsley Road Milton, Florida 32583 John F. & Katherine H. Edwards, pro se 2401 Old Military Road Mobile, Alabama 36605 Lucille Williams Gatewood, pro se 5212 Tinsley Road Milton, Florida 32583 Mary W. Henderson, pro se 3480 Country Lane Milton, Florida 32583 Clifton D. & Christa Childers, pro se 1013 N. 16th Avenue Milton, Florida 32583 Steve & Laura House 3251 Country Lane Milton, FL 32583 Mark W. & Patti J. Gatewood 3361 Hudson Bend Milton, FL 32583 Ms. Jane McMillan Greenwood 4884 Mulatto Bayou Drive Milton, FL 32583
