Findings Of Fact Proposal 1.. The proposed railroad crossing is requested on the basis of increased vehicular traffic at Tenth Street and Old Dixie Highway, and projections of still heavier traffic by the year 2000. Current traffic is 13,700 vehicles per day, and the level of traffic is projected to be over 50,000 vehicles per day by 2000. At this time traffic must move from Tenth Street to Old Dixie Highway using the existing crossing at Park Avenue. This necessitates two opposite 90- degree turns to move from one north/south street to the other. These two turns slow the traffic movement at Park Avenue. Expert testimony was received that current traffic has exceeded the design capabilities of the Park Avenues Tenth Street/Old Dixie Highway intersections. Old Dixie Highway and Tenth Street constitute one of the major north/south traffic corridors in Palm Beach County. The proposal would extend Tenth Street south and cross the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) tracks running directly into Old Dixie Highway. However, the Park Avenue crossing would be retained, because Park Avenue is a major east/west corridor. No study of an off-grade crossing was made, because the County had earlier made a cost analysis of such a crossing at Okeechobee Road, the most heavily traveled crossing in the County, and it was determined not to be cost effective. Because the traffic count was lower at the proposed crossing, a study of the proposal was not undertaken. The proposal is advantageous to the County, which owns much of the proposed right of way. Necessity Clearly, it would be advantageous to correct the traffic tie-up, which does exist, at Park Avenue/Tenth Street/Old Dixie Highway. Necessity to clear up the traffic was demonstrated; however, it was not demonstrated that this crossing would substantially improve the design limits of the area. Under the proposal the Tenth Street/Old Dixie Highway would interconnect more directly; however, the traffic flow north/south would be broken by the east/ west traffic flow on Park Avenue over the existing crossing 235 feet north of the proposed crossing. The intersections and crossings resulting from granting the application would not meet the design needs to handle the projected 52,000 vehicles per day. Convenience It would be convenient for motorists on Tenth Street and Old Dixie Highway to avoid the two opposing 90-degree turns, and to a degree more convenient to motorists traveling east/west on Park Avenue. It would be convenient to the County, which owns a portion of the proposed right of way. However, the FEC would have to remove an existing switching track, railroad users in the area would suffer to a degree from the loss of that track, and it would cost the FEC $70,000 capital cost in replacing the existing tracks and $16,000 to $35,000 annually in increased operating costs. These costs would be passed onto the users and ultimately onto the consumers of those products shipped by rail. The longer switching time caused by movement of the tracks would also adversely affect the operations of one of the primary users of the railroad cars by delaying spotting of empty cars necessary to commencement of its daily operations. Convenience of the motorists on Park Avenue and Tenth Street/Old Dixie Highway would be adversely affected by the 28 train movements over the Park Avenue and proposed crossings each day. Safety The proposal would not enhance safety. The proposed crossing would cross the railroad tracks at substantially less than the 70 degrees recommended in the Department of Transportation's standards. In addition, the proposed crossing would be only 235 feet south of the Park Avenue crossing and approximately 700 feet north of the Lake Park crossing. Three crossings within this distance create greater potential for danger than two crossings. There is more potential for mechanical failure, one more location for a crossing mishap to occur, and greater potential for human error by either engineers or motorists. The engineer, for example, would not have enough room to blow the required whistle signals between the crossings, and would have to observe vehicular traffic at the Park Avenue and proposed crossing at the same time. General No evidence was presented concerning alternative traffic routes, feasibility studies of this specific crossing as an offgrade crossing, or overall benefits and detriments to both highway and railroad users. The proposed crossing would temporarily solve the existing traffic problem but at severe and recurring cost to the FEC and railroad users. While some changes may be necessary to improve traffic flow, the use of the existing switching tracks is necessary to effective and economical use of the railroad by its users. The danger to vehicular and railroad traffic would be increased by the proposed crossing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation should deny the application for the at-grade crossing. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence C. Griffin, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Palm Beach County Courthouse Post Office Box 1989 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John W. Humes, Jr., Esquire Florida East Coast Railway One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 33804 James F. Jackson, Esquire 433 Seventh Avenue Post Office Drawer K West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
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 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
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 Whether there should be an opening of a public at-grade railroad crossing by New Rail Line Construction in the vicinity of: 1420 feet west of Mile Post SX 904, Seaboard Coastline Railroad (Northwest 9th Street), Okeechobee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact A railroad grade crossing application was submitted by Petitioner, McArthur Farms, Inc., for "opening a public at-grade rail highway crossing by New Rail Line Construction" in an unincorporated area of Okeechobee County on Northwest 9th Street and Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Railroad Mile Post 1420 feet west of Mile Post SX 904, west 900 feet, east 686 feet. The type of roadway is an existing paved two-lane road. The proposal is for a single track spur to serve one (switcher) train per day at a speed of 4 miles per hour. The cost estimate is $5,000 with the cost of the installation charged to the applicant. The cost estimate for annual maintenance is $800 with the cost of annual maintenance charged to the applicant. The signal installation is to be performed by the applicant and is a "warning sign." The cost of the installation is to be charged to the applicant. The application was submitted on February 18, 1977 and received departmental approval on February 21, 1977. The parties submitted a joint exhibit which is the letter from the Respondent, Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company, stating: "Further reference is made to your letter of February 21, 1977, and my reply of February 25 which had to do with application of McArthur Farms, Inc., for a crossing at grade of existing 15th Street by an industrial spur track at Okeechobee, Fla. This Company will have no objections to this proposal with the understanding that all ex- pense in connection therewith, including cost of signals or other warning devices which may be required, will be assumed by the Industry. Presume we shall be given notice of the hear- ing on this application. Yours very truly, T. B. Hutchenson Assistant Vice President" The following statement was made by the attorney for the Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, and concurred with by the attorney for the applicant: "In summary, Madam Examiner, the applicant made application for a spur line, located between other spur lines, across a two lane road in a rural area. The crossing will be used to service a feed mill. The movements will be in the daytime. There are less than 5,000 motor vehicles presently using the two lane roadway, traveling at less than 30 miles per hour. The roadway is two lanes. The characteristics of the highway in ques- tion are conducive to manual flagging and stopping of traffic. There will be no night movements of the train. And it meets the factual requirements that fall within an exception to any requirement for active signalization inasmuch as the exception within which it falls is in the afore cited provision of the Florida Administrative Code. (Chapter 14-46.03(3)(g)2., F.A.C.) The applicant will pay for the installation of the crossing and the necessary cross-bucks as minimum signalization, and there will be provided manual flagging for the crossings. So need has been established, safety pre cautions have been arranged and the crossing itself falls within the exceptions to active signalization." The Hearing Officer further finds: The need has been established for the crossing. Safety precautions needed have been arranged.
Recommendation Grant the permit upon the applicant's submitting an agreement with the Respondent railroad for the installation of the crossing and the signalization. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of September, 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 Harry K. Bender, Esquire Nicholson, Howard, Brawner & Lovett 131 Dade Federal Building 119 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Recommendation Close existing railroad crossing at Citrus Springs Boulevard and Seaboard Coastline Mile-post 763. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of November, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Gordan S. Burleson, Sr. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Livingston, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida James L. Shroads, Esquire 2350 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue The standards for opening an at-grade railroad crossing are set forth in Rule 14-46.03(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: (a) Opening Public Grade Crossings - The foremost criteria in the opening of grade crossings is the necessity, convenience and safety of rail and vehicle traffic. Existing routes should be utilized where practical. Damage to the railroad company's operation and railroad safety consideration must be a factor in permitting a new grade crossing. ... The issues set out above and agreed to by the parties are: Necessity; Convenience (to the public); Safety to railroad and vehicular traffic; and Whether existing routes should be utilized.
Findings Of Fact Necessity The City's application for the proposed public rail crossing within the city limits would connect Buffalo Road with Marina Road over the FEC's mainline track from Jacksonville to Miami, Florida. Buffalo and Marina Roads meet at right angles at the railroad track, with Marina Road running north and south parallel to and east of the railroad track and Buffalo Road running east and west to the west of the railroad track. The proposed crossing would tie the ends of these two streets together making a loop to and from US Highway 1, a major arterial route running north and south. Buffalo and Marina Roads provide access to all property, businesses and activities located along them within this area. These primary activities include two public recreational parks, a public marina, a restaurant, and a boat building works located in that order northward along Marina Road; and the primary activities on Buffalo Road are the City's sewage treatment plant and another portion of the boat building works, both of which are located at the east end of Buffalo Road. The proposed crossing is not required to obtain access to any location along these roads which would otherwise be landlocked. It is only approximately 1.7 miles from one side of the railroad track to the other side by the existing route; however, few members of the general public would make such a trip because of the activities located by the railroad tracks. Most of the projected traffic over the proposed crossing would be through traffic exiting or entering the Marina Road recreational area. This traffic would travel to US Highway 1 via Marina Road and Buffalo Road. The distance from the existing exit at Marina Road and US Highway 1 to the Buffalo Road and US Highway 1 intersection over the proposed route is 0.9 of a mile, almost the exact distance of the existing route. While the crossing would have great utility to the boat works, it is not necessary to the company's operations. Similarly, the proposed crossing would create another route to the recreational area for ambulances from the hospital located several blocks north of the Buffalo Road/US Highway 1 intersection. This route via the proposed crossing would not shorten the trip appreciably and certainly is not necessary. It would be operationally better for the fire department to have two accesses into the industrial area located at the ends of Buffalo and Marina Roads; however, it is not necessary for the fire department to have two routes, as is demonstrated by their successful responses to fires at both portions of the boat works. In summary, the distances involved and the available access to activities and businesses along Buffalo and Marina Roads do not sustain a finding that the proposed crossing is necessary. Convenience Many of the facts above, while not establishing a necessity for the proposed crossing, do establish that the crossing would be convenient. Two accesses into the activities located along both roads would be convenient to regular traffic and ambulances. It would be operationally desirable for the fire department to be able to approach a fire along these two roads from two directions. The proposed crossing would provide almost direct access between the two portions of the boat works now separated by the track. The development of the expanded recreational facilities along Marina Road will increase traffic volume, and at the periods of highest use, for example during softball tournaments, there is already congestion of traffic exiting Marina Road onto US Highway 1. However, the existing Marina Roads US Highway 1 intersection has a level of service A, or no traffic congestion during normal peak use. Further, the intersection would have no less than a level of service C rating with traffic volumes projected after full development of the recreational facilities. Level of service C is the optimum level of service from a planning standpoint considering cost effectiveness. Level of service C would be maintained with projected traffic volumes in spite of the intersection's configuration and location on a banked curve on the incline of the US Highway 1 overpass over the FEC's tracks. This configuration is not the safest possible; however, plans exist to move the Marina Road/US Highway 1 intersection south several hundred feet. This will greatly improve the configuration of this intersection and eliminate the safety problems of the existing intersection. When budgeted and completed this will make this intersection much safer than it is currently. As stated above in relationship to the issue of necessity, the majority of the traffic over the proposed crossing would be exiting or entering the Marina Road recreational complex. A comparison of the distances involved shows that traffic traveling from the Marina Road intersection to the Buffalo Road intersection over the existing route is only slightly inconvenienced. Safety There are two primary safety considerations: Railroad traffic safety and vehicular traffic safety. Railroad Safety: There is an average of 28 trains daily over the FEC's mainline track between Jacksonville and Miami, Florida, at the site of the proposed crossing. The proposed crossing is located on a curve between two curves. The characteristics of the curve north of the proposed crossing prevent a southbound train's crew from observing the actual crossing until the train is 1,200 feet from the crossing site. Due to vegetation along the roadways, the train crew must be almost at the crossing before they can see approaching vehicular traffic. The southbound trains travel at a speed of 48 miles per hour at the site of the proposed crossing and could not stop for an obstacle on the track from the point of initial observation. The characteristics of the curve south of the proposed crossing prevent the engineer of a northbound train from observing the crossing until very close to the crossing. Northbound trains travel at a speed of 35 miles per hour and would encounter great difficulty in stopping within the distance they would first observe an obstacle on the track. Vegetation and buildings restrict the northbound train crews observation of the vehicular approaches along Buffalo Road. This vegetation also restricts a driver's visibility of trains approaching from both the north and the south in three of four quadrants around the crossing. The restricted visibility makes train and vehicular traffic dependent upon warning signals and crossing protection devices. These devices suffer vandalism which can make them inoperable. The isolated location of the crossing would permit vandalism, as indicated by the damage to the dead end sign at the end of Buffalo Road observed during the view of the site. The FEC's data indicates that crossing warning devices do not eliminate crossing accidents. The FEC increased the number of protected crossings from 373 in 1976 to 510 in 1980, while the number of accidents at such crossings increased from 22 in 1976 to 42 in 1979. Such devices are not a substitute for good crossing layout and visibility. The dangers of this proposed crossing would place a continuing strain on train crews, and the only means of providing the margin of safety necessary is to slow the train's speed. This would adversely affect rail operations. Vehicular Safety: The layout of the proposed crossing creates hazards to vehicular traffic. To negotiate the crossing, north and southbound traffic would have to make a sharp 90-degree turn. At the proposed crossing the two roads have different widths and different elevations, making vehicle control and observation over the crossing's crest difficult. In addition Buffalo Road shifts its alignment to the left just prior to the crossing site. A southbound vehicle traveling east on Buffalo Road toward the crossing would have to move left just prior to the point where the road would widen and then make a right turn over the crossing. Failure to move left will cause a vehicle to hit the right cantilever standard, and failure to make the right turn will cause the vehicle to leave the roadway. The lack of room east of the track requires northbound traffic to approach the crossing parallel to the track and then make a 90-degree turn to cross the track. Again, the crossing's crest poses an obstacle to visibility of approaching traffic. The approach speeds for north and southbound traffic are extremely high for the proposed curve. Even with lower posted speed limits the isolation and road conditions will permit speeding along both roads. All of these factors raise the possibility of loss of control, which may result in vehicles leaving the traveled way and plunging into low areas surrounding the roads. Vehicular traffic which fails to make the curve could even plunge into the railroad right-of-way. Problems with this sharp curve are compounded by the inability to bank the road's curve properly and still maintain clearance for rail traffic. There are multiple safety problems with the proposed crossing, which create extremely hazardous conditions for vehicular traffic without consideration of the fact that the driver must also be alert for trains. The dangers at the existing intersection of Marina Road and US Highway 1 are small compared to those of the proposed crossing. In summary, the proposed crossing will expose the public to substantially greater dangers than those of the existing route. Use of the Existing Crossing There is an elevated, grade-separated crossing on US Highway 1 just south and slightly west of the proposed crossing. This provides class A service, the highest level of service possible, to vehicular traffic moving north and south on US Highway 1, or the same traffic which would use the proposed crossing. The US Highway 1 overpass, which is a four-lane major arterial road, will meet the projected traffic volumes until the year 2000. This existing crossing eliminates a railroad/vehicular traffic conflict point entirely. The US Highway 1 overpass provides the safest means of crossing the FEC's track for both rail and vehicular traffic at no appreciable inconvenience.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency head deny the application to open an at-grade crossing at Buffalo Road. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Appendix I (map) Appendix II (exhibits) Dwight W. Severs, Esquire 509 Palm Avenue Post Office Box 669 Titusville, Florida 32780 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John W. Humes, Jr., Esquire Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 APPENDIX II LIST OF EXHIBITS City of Titusville (Petitioner) Traffic analysis report prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 1980 arterial street plan Sand Point Park plan Revision to Sand Point Park plan Street map of the City of Titusville Aerial photograph initialed by the parties Ten photographs of proposed crossing and surrounding area initialed by the parties Construction plans for crossing Assessor's map Traffic analysis prepared by Tipton & Associates, Inc. Nineteen photographs initialed by the parties Composite 12 photographs of proposed crossing Zoning Map of City of Titusville Commercial Map of Greater Titusville with residences of players indicated Memorandum - Orr to Buschman regarding Accident Record, Marina Road/US Highway 1 Kimley-Horn Traffic Study, Marina Road/US Highway 1 without crossing Kimley-Horn Traffic Study, Marina Road/US Highway 1 and Buffalo Road/US Highway 1 with crossing Florida East Coast Railway Company (Respondent) Memorandum - File from Fernandez regarding Buffalo Road Crossing Manual of Uniform Standards, Department of Transportation Extract from Titusville Ordinance Data for number of at-grade crossings and types of devices Appendix II - Page 1 Number of Crossing Accidents by Type of Device Damage to Crossing Devices Not received Not received Profer - Affidavit of Fondren regarding materials in proposed crossing
Findings Of Fact Transportation plans for Broward County made as long ago as 1965 provide for roads crossing the SCL tracks at N. W. 48th Street in Broward County and at S. W. 10th Street in Deerfield Beach. Both of these routes are now planned as principal E-W arteries providing four lanes of traffic. Rights of way for these routes both east and west of the SCL tracks have been acquired by the City of Deerfield Beach and by Broward County. Approaches for both of these arteries over the recently completed I-95 running just east of the railroad tracks have also been completed. Two crossings presently provide access from east of the tracks to the area here involved west of the tracks, one at SR 810 to the north and the other at Sample Road some 3 1/2 miles to the south. S. W. 10th Street in Deerfield Beach is just under one mile south of SR 810 also in Deerfield Beach, and N. W. 48th Street is outside the incorporated area of Deerfield Beach one mile south of S. W. 10th Street. The population of Deerfield Beach is approximately 31,000 and some 6,000 persons reside west of the SCL tracks. The largest development in Deerfield Beach west of the tracks is Century Village located south of and adjacent to SR 810. The only entry to and access from Century Village is via SR 810. In the event the crossing at SR 810 is blocked emergency access to Century Village and other areas west of the SCL tracks is via Sample Road or via the next crossing to the north in Palm Beach County some five miles north of SR 810. Fire protection for the unincorporated area of Broward County in the vicinity of N. W. 48th Street west of the SCL tracks is provided from the fire station approximately one mile east of the SCL tracks near SR 810 and US 1 in Deerfield Beach. To reach that area it is necessary to cross the tracks at SR 810, proceed west to Powerline Road, south to Sample Road, east to N. W. 9th Avenue, and north to the area. A similar route would have to be followed by other emergency vehicles either police or medical. Substantial growth of the area immediately west of the SCL tracks between SR 810 and Sample Road has occurred and developments are currently underway to provide numerous homesites, principally trailer park facilities, in this area. Sample Road has been widened to 6 lanes and is estimated to be 300 percent overcapacity if all land use plans predicated for the area are developed. Additional E-W arterial transportation routes are needed. SCL presently has a passing track or siding at the proposed S. W. 10th Street crossing. This siding is 5700 feet long and can accommodate 96 cars. Three-fourths of this track lies north of S. W. 10th Street and approximately 71 cars could be accommodated, on the portion of the siding north of S. W. 10th Street. This 5700 foot section of track is adjacent and parallel to the main track which presently carries 6 passenger and 6 freight trains per day plus approximately 2 switch trains per day. It is used to drop off cars for later pickup, for allowing north and southbound trains to pass, or for a passenger train to pass a freight train. Exhibit 16 was stipulated into evidence to show typical activity at this 5700 foot Deerfield Beach siding. During the period February 22, 1976 to April 13, 1976 the largest number of cars held on this siding at any one time was 68. Similar sidings (generally with greater capacity) exist at various places alongside SCL tracks. The cost of providing a grade separation crossing at the SCL tracks at either N. W. 48th Street or S. W. 10th Street is approximately one million dollars. While such a crossing would obviously be safer than a grade crossing, the cost to benefit ratio for the grade crossing over the grade separation crossing is 4.52 at 48th Street and more than 3 at S. W. 10th Street. The safety index for both of the proposed grade crossings with active safety warning devices is in the range of acceptability - each showing an accident probability of one every 11 years. Annual cost of the signals and warning devices to be installed on the grade crossing is some $21,000 a year while the cost of a grade separation structure is some $63,000 a year. Providing grade separation at S. W. 10th Street would necessitate the approach on the east of the track starting at about the same place the approach on the west side of I-95 starts, thereby effectively blocking any N-S access to S. W. 10th Street between I-95 and the SCL tracks. Although Exhibit 17 was not admitted into evidence one witness testified that the figures thereon, showing the cost of relocating the 5700 feet of siding at Deerfield Beach, were on the conservative side and would probably cost more. However, no evidence was presented that an at-grade crossing would render this siding useless for the purposes intended nor was any evidence offered to show that the value of this siding to SCL would be materially reduced by an at-grade crossing at S. W. 10th Street.
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted for an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Live Oak, Perry and South Georgia Railway Company Mile Post 1688 feet east of Mile Post 40.
Findings Of Fact Proper notice was given the parties and the hearing was delayed for thirty (30) minutes after time of notice in the event that the Respondent desired to make an appearance but was unavoidably detained. State Road 20 was relocated so that the subject crossing is necessary to the straightening and the realignment of the existing road. The average daily traffic is estimated to be 3,600 for the year 1976 and to be 4,800 in ten (10) years. The railroad is a single line trackage and is shown by the inventory to carry four (4) trains per day at 10 m.p.h. The tracks serve a local paper mill in Foley, Florida. An agreement has been worked out between the Department of Transportation and the Respondent railroad. The agreement provides for the protection and signalization at the location of the subject crossing and provides for the funding of the project. The prior or present crossing in this vicinity on State Road 20 will be open and in operation approximately 600 feet from the proposed crossing. Both crossings will have flashing lights and the existing crossing will carry primarily local traffic coming out of the county grade road. The new crossing will bear most of the traffic. The Respondent railroad is in agreement with the opening of the crossing; the Department of Transportation is in agreement that the additional crossing be permitted; the parties agree that the signalization shall be cantilevered flashing lights.
Recommendation Grant the permit to open the crossing. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. R. A. Kelso, Chief Engineer Design & Construction Southern Railway Company (Live Oak, Perry and South Georgia Railway Company) 99 Spring Street, South West Atlanta, Georgia 30303
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at grade rail-highway crossing by new roadway construction at Everglades Boulevard-State Road 710- Section 91000-6604, Okeechobee County Parcel 1 (right of way XSO-8).
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail-highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Okeechobee County through its agent Moseley Collins, P. E., County Engineer. The crossing location is southeast of the city of Okeechobee, Florida. The local popular name of the street is Everglades Boulevard. The proposed crossing is across the tracks of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad at Seaboard Coastline milepost 911.93. The crossing would serve a growing subdivision approximately three (3) miles wide and nine (9) miles long, an area in which approximately 3,000 people live. There is one entrance to the subdivision across Highway 441 South. There is a second grade crossing signalized with crossbucks known as the Hazellieff Road crossing. This crossing does not serve the subject subdivision inasmuch as the road dead-ends after crossing the railroad. There are no current plans to buy up the right of way and extend the road at the Hazellieff crossing. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad would prefer that the Applicant extend the road to serve the subject subdivision. The Hazellieff crossing is approximately one-half mile from the proposed crossing, but the Applicant states that the crossing serves only a few families and the Applicant does not own the right of way across the muck-pitted area and has no plans to extend the road that crosses the railroad at Hazellieff crossing. There is an estimated average daily traffic count of 2,000 cars per day which would use the proposed crossing. There are six passenger train movements every twenty-four hours on the railroad at those crossings. There are six through freights every twenty-four hours and four local freights every twenty- four hours, plus additional extra trains as needed. The speeds range up to 79 miles per hour for passenger trains and 60 miles per hour for freight trains. The passenger trans are the AMTRAK trains. A need has been established for another opening across the railroad because of the long and circuitous route that must be traveled to enter the subdivision. In the event of a storm, there is an additional hazard to the road because of two bridges that must be crossed. The proposed opening would decrease greatly the mileage to be traveled to fire or hospital. The parties agreed that the proper signalization for the proposed crossing would be automatic crossing gates, flashing lights and ringing bells. The Applicant contends that an opening is needed to serve the growing subdivision known as Treasure Island; that the existing crossing is insufficient as far as the safety of the community is concerned and requires a much longer way to be traveled by the residents of the subdivision. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad contends that the existing public opening should be used and right of way bought by the county so that there would not be an additional crossing of the tracks. AMTRAK contends that there should be no new openings across the tracks where the passenger trains attain high speeds unless there is a great need and a study made to see if there cannot be a closing to balance the opening across the tracks. Florida Department of Transportation contends that a need has been established for the crossing and that the parties have agreed that lights, bells and gates are the needed signalization. The Hearing Officer further finds: That a need has been established by the Applicant. That proper signalization includes flashing lights, ringing bells and gates.
Recommendation Grant permit, providing there is a clearance from the Safety Engineer as to the visibility problem pointed out by the Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Daniel H. Brunner, Esquire 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Southwest Washington, D. C. 20024 W. L. Hendry, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1337 Okeechobee, Florida Jack J. Vereen, Jr. Assistant Division Engineer 2206 N. W. 7th Avenue Miami, Florida 33127 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 =================================================================
