The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the City's application to open an at- grade crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street, Boca Raton, Florida (Milepost 324 + 2350') should be granted and is in keeping with the dictates of Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-46.03(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based on a careful consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence and the other arguments of counsel, ,the following relevant facts are found. The City of Boca Raton filed an application to open an at-grade railroad crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street, which is situated at Railway's Milepost 324 + 2350' and the Florida East Coast Railway Company filed an application to close Palmetto Park Road at-grade crossing, which is situated at Milepost 324 + 2988'. Due to the close proximity of the two crossings, a joint hearing was held. The Railway, in filing its application to close Palmetto Park Road, noted that its application was alternative to and contingent upon the granting of the City's application to open NE/NW 2nd Street. The Railway's position is that one of the two crossings is adequate. The Applicant's position respecting this application was presented through Mr. John Carroll, City Engineer since approximately September of 1977, and Mr. Joseph Pollack, P.E., of Kimley-Horn and Associates. Palmetto Park Road is a major east/west arterial road serving the City. The most recent traffic counts for Palmetto Park Road in May, 1978, indicate a peak traffic count of approximately 24,000 vehicles per day at the intersection of Palmetto Park Road, Dixie Highway and the existing crossing. This represents a volume/capacity ratio for that intersection of approximately 1.35 or approximately 35 percent greater than the designed capacity for the intersection. Such a condition is known as "forced flow." Based thereon, the City argues that there have been an increasingly high number of vehicle-to- vehicle and vehicle-to crossing gate accidents at the subject intersection and crossing. Thus, for example, the City points out that during calendar year 1977, the most current year that statistics were available, there were eighteen accidents at the intersection and crossing, with seven of those accidents directly involving the crossing gates closing on vehicles waiting to clear the crossing (See City Exhibit 10). According to Dr. Carroll, several additional crossing gate accidents were never reported. The West Palm Beach Urban Area Transportation Study (WPBUATS) indicates a 1955 traffic volume on Palmetto Park Road of 18,000 vehicles per day and 1990 traffic volume of 26,000 vehicles per day (City's Exhibits 4A, 4B, 5A and 5B). Such projections are based upon the City's construction of alternate east/west corridors which are not now in existence and, if such alternative routes are not constructed, the above projected traffic volume increases would be greater. Without question, the NE/NW 2nd Street project would reduce congestion on Palmetto Park Road. Testimony introduced during the hearing reveals that the NE/NW 2nd Street project will draw approximately 4,000 vehicles per day from Palmetto Park Road. If such reduction results, the volume/capacity ratio on Palmetto Park Road at the existing crossing and Dixie Highway intersection would reduce the current "forced flow situation to its approximate designed capacity. During the hearing, testimony was submitted to the effect that in addition to eliminating the "forced flow" condition at Palmetto Park Road, the subject project will facilitate emergency vehicle response time, would be more convenient to citizens desiring access to the central business district and would, if calculated, result in a fuel consumption saving. The NE/NW 2nd Street project was first envisioned by the City in 1964 and since that date, the City has acquired substantial amount of the necessary rights-of-way to accomplish completion of this project. Specifically, in 1973, the City acquired rights-of-way between Federal Highway and First Avenue, and in 1974 and 1976, the City required certain developers to dedicate other necessary rights-of-way. In September, 1977, the City's electorate approved a bend issue totaling $1,770,000 for road improvements, which included $448,000 for the NE/NW 2nd Street project. Mr. Pollack testified credibly that his firm designed the NE/NW 2nd Street project and the crossing to meet all applicable design safety criteria. The Railway's opposition to the opening of a crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street was based partially upon the close proximity of the proposed crossing to the existing crossing at Palmetto Park Road and also upon the Railway's opinion that opening of the NE/NW 2nd Street crossing would do little in terms of reducing the over-utilization of the crossing at Palmetto Park Road. 10. It was noted during the hearing that by 1990, the average traffic vehicle using the Palmetto Park Road crossing will approach 30,000 vehicles. It is undisputed that the additional crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street will draw vehicles from the Palmetto Park Road crossing. In terms of alternative routes, the City conducted feasibility studies which reveal that either in terms of widening Palmetto Park Road or alternatively constructing an above-grade crossing at the Railway's mainline track, both alternatives are prohibitive in terms of cost and thus, not feasible. The prohibitive costs stem from the fact that the property abutting Palmetto Park Road in the close proximity of the existing crossing is presently developed for commercial uses. Finally, all parties agreed that regardless of whether the proposed NE/NW 2nd Street crossing application was granted, the closing of Palmetto Park Road would be disastrous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the application of the City of Boca Raton to open an at-grade crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street (Milepost 324 + 2350') be GRANTED. It is further recommended that the application of the Railway to close the Palmetto Park Road at-grade crossing (Milepost 324 + 2988') be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the application of the City of Boca Raton Applicant, to open an at-grade crossing at Southwest 18th Street (Milepost 326 + 100') within the City of Boca Raton should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the documentary evidence offered during the hearing, consideration of the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by the parties, the following relevant facts are found. Southwest 18th Street is located in the southern quadrant of the City. Presently, it is unimproved from an area immediately west of Military Trail and proceeds east with an overpass over Interstate 95 into the Seaboard Railway tracks through the City and terminates just prior to the El Rio Canal (See City's Exhibit 1). Two citizens groups appeared at the hearing and offered testimony against the application. The first group consisted primarily of residents of the Boca Bayou Condominium, which is an area east of the Railway's mainline track and Dixie Highway. Opposition from residents of Boca Bayou was essentially to the fact that the proposed crossing and its extension at Southwest 18th Street would increase automobile traffic, train noise, and air pollution, and thus diminish the value of their residences; and, secondly, that the construction of another crossing would create an additional source of vehicular contact, and thus a source for additional automobile accidents. The other group opposition to the subject application emanated from residents of Camino Lakes. Stan Radzkowski, a resident of Camino Lakes Community, voiced concern about the attractiveness of the community, the increase of vehicular traffic with the advent of the new crossing and with other resulting safety problems (See Joint Exhibits 1, 2 and 3). Other citizens residing in the area west of the Railway's mainline tracks along the existing Southwest 18th Street (Camino Real Community) appeared and opposed the application. This group generally opposed the application on the basis that the crossing would have an adverse impact on street improvements in the immediate area adjoining their residences. Southwest 18th Street is designated in the West Palm Beach Urban Area Transportation Study (WPBUATS) as a major east/west arterial serving the southern quadrant of the City and Palm Beach County. WPBUATS is the basic transportation planning document in Palm Peach County (Applicant's Exhibits 4A, 4B, 5A and 5B are exhibits designating the studies conducted during the 1960's with the projection of traffic studies from 1985 with updates through the year 2000). The Applicant recognized in 1965, as did the Department of Transportation in 1968, that there existed a great need for a major route at Southwest 18th Street. To handle the traffic flow, the City designated Southwest 18th Street as a major arterial route in 1965. Interstate 95 was completed and opened for traffic during calendar year 1977. During September of 1977, the City Council proposed a bond issue which was approved by the electorate, including $800,000 set aside for the Southwest 18th Street bridge and a railroad crossing at that site. Existing available data revealed that all existing crossings within the immediate vicinity are either operating at capacity or over capacity, and that it is impossible to construct an above-grade crossing at Southwest 18th Street due to cost factors. John Carroll, the City Engineer since September of 1977, has approximately twenty-two years of experience in traffic engineering, highway design and traffic impact studies. Mr. Carroll was received as an expert in traffic related matters. Mr. Carroll testified that if the Southwest 18th Street crossing application is not granted, traffic will necessarily be shifted to other areas and that Southwest 18th Street could not function as proposed due to the manner in which traffic flows into the area. Carroll testified that there would be an approximate four minute reduction in travel time if the Southwest 18th Street crossing is approved, and that gas consumption could be reduced by approximately 500 gallons per day by the area motorists. Additionally, he testified that emergency vehicle response time would be reduced by the opening of the Southwest 18th Street crossing. According to Carroll's data, the traffic count for Camino Real during April 20, 1978, was approximately 17,000 vehicles per day, and that volume capacity for the area was 18,000 vehicles per day. He testified that area growth figures reveal that the average annual traffic increase is 16 percent. This, according to Mr. Carroll, shows that by April, 1979, the traffic flow will be beyond the peak for the area. Mr. Carroll testified that an engineering firm (Kimley-Horn and Associates) was engaged to study the feasibility and design of the proposed 18th Street's southwest crossing. Based on the study completed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, witnesses Carroll and Joe Pollack, an engineer from the firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates, concluded that the improvements engineered into the design of the Southwest 18th Street area would correct any alignment problems and solve the additional increase in traffic load for the area (See Exhibit 7). Mr. Pollack testified that in designing the Southwest 18th Street proposed crossing, Kimley-Horn and Associates considered the following factors: Traffic; Grade and elevation; Existing railroad crossings; Protective devices and signalization; and Traffic signals. He concluded that based on the study as presented by Kimley-Horn and Associates, the proposed crossing would reduce the likelihood of accidents. By reducing overflow traffic and by use of maximum signalization, including flashing lights coordinated with traffic signals along the roadway, gates, bells, and cantilevered lights with motion sensors, the proposed crossing, according to Mr. Pollack, would be a safe and efficiently designed crossing. Mr. E. H. McLaughlin, an employee of the Railway since approximately April of 1955 and presently a Trainmaster since 1971, is a qualified locomotive engineer. Mr. McLaughlin testified that the most prevalent problem that would face motorists if the proposed application is granted, would be that of a lack of visibility by the train engineers, to see motorists approaching from the south. Mr. McLaughlin testified that the proposed crossing is situated on the Railway's mainline and that approximately eighteen trains use the line daily. Mr. Frank Stuart, an employee of the Railway since 1955, is presently the manager of insurance and safety for the Railway. Mr. Stuart testified that if the proposed application is in fact granted, he would recommend as a safety supervisor that the crossing use safety devices consisting of flashing lights, gates, bells, cantilevered lights and motion sensors. He further recommended that no holding (storing) facilities be situated near the crossing. Mr. Stuart guesstimated the cost for the signalization required at approximately $54,000 excluding the motion sensors and site preparation. Mr. Joseph Rice, a Registered Professional Engineer and a consultant for the Railway, was called as expert witness to testify respecting the Railway's position. Mr. Rice testified that in his opinion the vehicular figures cited in the WPBUATS studies are too high; however, he was of the opinion that using the most realistic figures, all studies showed that the road (Southwest 18th Street) would necessarily have to be upgraded. Mr. Rice recommended that if the crossing is permitted, that maximum signalization be utilized at the crossing. Mr. Rice also conceded during cross-examination that staged construction was a good idea for a municipality to engage in to complement its overall growth. Although he was of the opinion that there were alternative routes available, he could not be specific as to whether or not there were feasible alternatives to the proposed crossing. Jeffrey DuBois, a District Coordinator in the Fourth District for the Department of Transportation, testified that a conference committee was conducted with respect to the subject crossing and that the conference recommended that if the application for the subject crossing is granted, cantilevered lights, gates, bells and flashing lights be used as signalization for the proposed crossing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the application of the City of Boca Raton to open an at-grade crossing at Southwest 18th Street (milepost 326 + 100') be GRANTED. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1979.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of the L&N Railroad Company to close the Johnson Street or Post Office Road rail/highway crossing be DENIED. Respectfully submitted this 24th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dawn E. Welch, Esquire Beggs and Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 John Dowd, Esquire Post Office Box 129 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Secretary William N. Rose Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The railroad crossing which is the subject of this proceeding is crossing number 272626-E, in the City of Miami, Florida. Its location at N.E. 55th Terrace is approximately 500 feet north of an existing crossing located at N.E. 54th Street, and roughly 1100 feet south of another crossing located at N.E. 59th Street. The Railway's rationale for seeking to close the N.E. 55th Terrace crossing is that these other two nearby crossings offer practical alternate routes to the N.E. 55th Terrace crossing, and can provide adequate access to the area for the public and emergency services. The City's opposition is based on its contention that closure of the N.E. 55th Terrace crossing would adversely affect emergency access to the area, which has experienced substantial growth in population due to the influx of refugees. The Department of Transportation supports the closing of the subject crossing, contending that N.E. 55th Terrace is not a thoroughfare and that it has a low volume of vehicular traffic, and because of its proximity to other crossings. The section of the Florida East Coast Railway involved in this proceeding runs from N.E. 79th Street to Biscayne Boulevard, a distance of approximately five miles. There are approximately 30 crossings now in existence over this section of the railroad's track. The principal justification for the closure of the N.E. 55th Terrace crossing is its proximity to the other crossings located at N.E. 54th Street and at N.E. 59th Street, and the resulting improvement in safety for vehicular traffic and railroad equipment. Removal of the subject crossing should eliminate vehicular accidents on the tracks, and eliminate upkeep and maintenance expenses caused by frequent vandalism at the N.E. 55th Terrace crossing location. In addition, closure will eliminate one sounding of the train whistle between N.E. 59th Street and N.E. 54th Street. The present signal device at the N.E. 55th Terrace crossing is of an old-type steel construction with a cast iron crossbuck on a concrete-type foundation. Because it is of steel construction, it is hard to maintain in a salt climate. This device is approximately 25 years old and has to be maintained by a pole line which is about 30 years old. It will have to be replaced within two years unless the application is granted and the crossing closed, at a cost of approximately $42,266. This signal device has been the subject of vandalism, requiring replacement of two bond wires within the last three months. On other occasions the lens and bulb were broken out. During the months of August, September and October, 1981, there were four instances when repairs were required at the subject crossing due to vandalism, the frequency of which is higher in this area than at other points in Miami. The crossing at N.E. 55th Terrace does not connect directly with Biscayne Boulevard. It is not an arterial road but is a collector or service road providing access to adjacent properties. There are alternative roads in the area which carry most of the large volume of traffic. Less than 500 vehicles a day use the N.E. 55th Terrace crossing, while approximately 12,000 vehicles a day use the N.E. 54th Street crossing. The movement of fire, police and other emergency vehicles would not be impeded by closing of the N.E. 55th Terrace crossing, since other crossings are readily available and offer better access and quicker response time than N.E. 55th Terrace. Police or fire vehicles moving over the N.E. 55th Terrace crossing must travel over a circuitous route because N.E. 55th Terrace is not a continuous street. In addition, closure of the subject crossing would remove an existing conflict point (a point where the path of any vehicle is interrupted by another vehicle), which is beneficial from a safety standpoint. Finally, any population growth in the area will have adequate transportation over N.E. 54th Street and N.E. 59th Street, and will not require the use of the N.E. 55th Terrace crossing. Consequently, there will be a negligible impact upon traffic over the crossings at N.E. 54th Street and N.E. 59th Street by closure of the N.E. 55th Terrace crossing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida East Coast Railway Company to close the at-grade railroad crossing at N.E. 55th Terrace in Miami, Florida, be granted. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 17th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 17th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Evans, Esquire One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Terry V. Percy, Esquire 174 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The railroad crossing which is the subject of this proceeding is crossing number 272859-B, in the City of Florida City, Florida. Its location at N.W. 14th Street is approximately 700 feet north of an existing crossing located at Lucy Street, and roughly 1900 feet south of a present crossing located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway. The Railway's rationale for closing the N.W. 14th Street crossing is that these other two nearby crossings offer practical alternate routes to the N.W. 14th Street crossing, and can provide public access and emergency services to the area. The City's opposition is based on its contention that closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing would affect emergency access to the area. The principal justification for the closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing is its proximity to the other crossings located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway and Lucy Street, and the resulting improvement in safety for vehicular traffic and railroad equipment. Removal of the subject crossing would eliminate vehicular accidents on the tracks, and eliminate upkeep and maintenance expenses caused by frequent vandalism at the N.W 14th Street crossing location. In addition, closure would eliminate the need to sound the train whistle at the N.W. 14th Street crossing which is located near a residential housing area. The Railway receives an average of two calls per week to report incidents of vandalism in the area of the N.W. 14th street crossing. This number of calls is above average compared to other crossings in the area. Moreover, closure of the subject crossing would permit the relocation of the signal devices now in use there to one of forty-four other crossings in or near Florida City. The traffic count taken in the vicinity of N.W. 14th Street, which is a local service road providing access to a single neighborhood, showed that about 600 vehicles per day use the crossing. Traffic counts taken at Lucy Street, a through street which provides service beyond any specific residential area, resulted in approximately 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day. The Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway crossings have sufficient capability to handle all traffic diverted to them if the 14th Street crossing should be closed. The N.W. 14th Street crossing also allows outside traffic to enter the residential area, contrary to good urban planning. By removal of the crossing, such through traffic would be eliminated. The alternate crossings at Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis parkway provide reasonable alternate routes, and removal of the subject crossing will not unduly inhibit access by emergency vehicles into the affected area. Although 75 percent of the calls the Florida City police receive originate from Cuban village, a heavily populated area surrounding N.W. 14th Street, if the subject crossing were closed, Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway could be used to respond to emergency police calls in the Cuban Village. Therefore, alternate routes are available for emergency access to the affected area. In addition, from a pedestrian safety standpoint, there is sufficient space along Lucy Street to allow pedestrians to walk there without being affected by vehicular traffic.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida East Coast Railway Company to close the at-grade railroad crossing at N.W. 14th Street in Florida City, Florida, be granted. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 15 day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 15 day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Evans, Esquire One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Thomas Tomassi, Esquire 137 N.W. 10th Street Homestead, Florida 33030 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The railroad crossing which is the subject of this proceeding is crossing number 272642-N, in the City of Miami, Florida. Its location at N.W. 13th Street is approximately 430 feet south of an existing crossing located at N.W. 14th Street, and roughly 850 feet north of another crossing located at N.W. 11th Street. The Railway's rationale for seeking to close the N.W. 13th Street crossing is that these other two nearby crossings offer practical alternate routes to the N.W. 13th Street crossing, and can provide adequate access to the area for the public and emergency services. The City's opposition is based on its contention that closure of the N.W. 13th Street crossing would adversely affect emergency access to the area, and would restrict access to the adjacent area where the City has at least two redevelopment plans pending which contemplate the building of approximately 10,000 new residential housing units. The Department of Transportation supports the closing of the subject crossing, contending that the existing crossings at N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street can carry the traffic that would be diverted from N.W. 13th Street, and that closing the N.W. 13th Street crossing would eliminate a hazard to the public at that point. The section of the Florida East Coast Railway involved in this proceeding runs from N.E. 79th Street to Biscayne Boulevard, a distance of approximately five miles. There are approximately 30 crossings now in existence over this section of the railroad's track. The principal justification for the closure of the N.W. 13th Street crossing is its proximity to the two crossings located at N.W. 11th Street and at N.W. 14th Street, and the resulting improvement in safety for vehicular traffic and railroad equipment. There is an overpass with large pillars directly above the subject crossing, and a curve in the railroad track at this location which tend to restrict the view of train crews as the crossing is approached. Closure will also eliminate upkeep and maintenance expenses caused by frequent vandalism at the N.W. 13th Street crossing location, and eliminate one sounding of the train whistle between N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street. The present signal device at the N.W. 13th Street crossing is between 20 and 25 years old, and should require replacement within the next two years at an estimated cost of $41,570, unless the application is granted and the crossing closed. In addition, this signal device has been the subject of vandalism on four different occasions during the months of August, September and October, 1981, which necessitated repairs at the crossing site. The frequency of vandalism at the N.W. 13th Street location exceeds that at most of the other crossings in the Miami area. Northwest 13th Street is not a through street, but is a localized road which is blocked by the embankment for I-95. It is one-way westbound from the general vicinity of Biscayne Boulevard and 2nd Avenue to just beyond the subject crossing where it becomes two-way past the I-95 embankment. Both N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street are arterial roads which pass beneath I-95 and are not blocked by the embankment. They are the alternate roads in the area with adequate capacity to carry the traffic diverted from N.W. 13th Street if this crossing were closed. The movement of fire, police and other emergency vehicles would not be impeded by closing of the N.W. 13th Street crossing, since the crossings at N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street are readily available and offer better access to the area than N.W. 13th Street. Police or fire vehicles moving eastward over the N.W. 13th Street crossing must travel over a circuitous route because N.W. 13th Street is not a two-way street east of the crossing. In addition, closure of the subject crossing would remove an existing conflict point (a point where the path of any vehicle is interrupted by another vehicle), which is beneficial from a safety standpoint. Finally, any population growth in the area will have adequate transportation over N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street and will not require the use of the N.W. 13th Street crossing. Consequently, there will not be any significant impact upon traffic over the crossings at N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street by closure of the N.W. 13th Street crossing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida East Coast Railway Company to close the at-grade railroad crossing at N.W. 13th Street in Miami, Florida, be granted. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this the 17th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Evans, Esquire One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Terry V. Percy, Esquire 174 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 17th day of March, 1982.
The Issue Whether the at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue and Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 104 + 172' in Ormond Beach, Florida should be closed.
Findings Of Fact By application the Florida East Coast Railway Company seeks a permit to close an existing at-grade public railroad crossing located in Volusia County, Florida, at Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 104 + 172' in the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue. There exists a standard cross buck sign or fixed sign at the subject crossing and there is a vehicular stop sign on each side of the crossing. There is a total of sixteen freight rail movements and a total of two local freight rail movements crossing each day. In addition to these scheduled moves there are a few unscheduled movements such as work trains. The speed limit for this area is 35 m.p.h. A 24-hour traffic survey was set up on Lincoln Avenue just west of the railroad-tracks where the number of vehicles counted was 567. The 24-hour period started at 11:00 a.m. on November 18, 1975, and continued until 11:00 a.m. on November 19, 1975. There is no sight problem from south to north but from north to south there is a curve that bears to the right coming into Lincoln Avenue which gives a railroad sight problem. For vehicles there is a sight problem going from west to east, but no sight problem going from east to west. There have been four documented accidents at the crossing: one in 1962, one in 1965, and two in 1973. There has been expansion of the city to the areas particularly west of the railroad tracks and north of the crossing at State Road Lincoln Avenue is the only crossing between State Road 40 and State Road 5A. It is approximately 1.5 miles. There is a need for a railroad crossing in the area as an alternate to the crossing on State Road 40. The railroad suggests bells, flashing lights and gates, in the event this application to close is not permitted. The Department of Transportation recommends flashing lights and bells, suggesting that gates would be better, but such signalization adequate. The City did not recommend a type of signalization but did recommend that the permit to close be denied. The Hearing Officer further finds: The permit should be denied inasmuch as there is a need for the crossing; The crossing should be signalized to make it less hazardess; Signalization without gates is adequate.
Findings Of Fact In 1927, the City of Haines City and the Atlantic Coastline Railroad Company entered into a written agreement to construct a crossing at Charles Street, now known generally as Currie Street. The city expended public funds in the construction of the crossing. The construction agreement contained no termination date and the crossing has been open and in use since its construction in 1927. The crossing is one of seven inside the city limits which are located along a two mile length of track. The track services four (4) passenger trains and ten (10) freight trains daily. While the train speed limit at the Charles Street crossing is seventy miles per hour for passenger trains and fifty miles per hour for freight trains, it is not possible for trains traveling at such speeds to stop quickly in the event of a blockage on the track. A passenger train would require approximately three quarters of a mile to stop while a freight train would require roughly one mile. Passenger trains primarily utilize the track during the day while freight trains utilize the track during an entire twenty-four hour period. Safety is the main factor considered by the Department in determining whether to open or close a railroad crossing. The Charles Street crossing is somewhat dangerous because of its "Z" shaped design which requires cars approaching the crossing to travel parallel to the tracks, thus hindering visibility. Visibility on the west side of the crossing is restricted because of the presence of an overpass and bridge piers. While visibility is impaired to a degree by the piers, a driver approaching the crossing has an adequate line of sight in both directions. The approach to the crossing is extremely rough and traffic by necessity crosses Charles Street at very low speeds. The crossing is not heavily utilized by vehicular traffic. Additionally, traffic noise from the nearby overpass could blend with a whistle signal thus causing a safety problem. However, on the days when readings at the crossing were taken, the adjacent noise level did not drown out the train whistle. In the opinion of the Department's Railroad Committee, the occurrence of accidents at the crossing is not required before the Committee determines a particular crossing to be hazardous. The Department also considers the need for emergency services and fire and police protection in determining whether to recommend closure. The proposed alternate crossing, McKay Street, is closer to the fire and police departments than Charles Street. However, because locomotives sometimes block the McKay Street crossing to service several industries located east of the crossing, 1/ emergency vehicles attempting to service certain residential areas would be required to travel an added distance of as much as two miles. Although the Railroad plans to install motion sensor devices, it does not appear that such devices would be satisfactory in a situation where a train was totally blocking a crossing. Although the railroad has a procedure for moving trains in emergency situations, it would be quicker to travel the approximate four minutes it could take to cover the added two miles rather than utilize the existing procedures. Moreover, response time is a factor in determining fire safety and is of added importance in this case because of the type of housing located in the area. Because of these factors, it appears that the closing of Charles Street could unduly inhibit the movement of emergency type vehicles. The alternative McKay Street route proposed by the Department and Railroad is through an existing residential area. McKay Street was neither designed nor built to accommodate heavy truck traffic. Additionally, a city ordinance prohibits driving semi-trucks through a residential area. The businesses utilizing the Charles Street crossing include a carnival operator and an automobile garage. Both businesses require the use of heavy equipment and trucks. McKay Street is not a viable alternative route for these businesses because of the cities prohibition on use of McKay Street for truck traffic and the manner in which the street was constructed. If the ordinances were not amended, these property owners and possibly others could lose lawful access to their property and businesses. The Department's Railroad Committee which recommends which rail/highway crossings should be closed, considers the existence of a feasible or viable alternate route to be critical to the recommendation regarding closure. If a viable alternate route does not exist, the committee would not recommend that a crossing be closed. While the Charles Street crossing has a number of features which could increase the chances of an accident occurring at the crossing, no such accidents have occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petition of the Florida Department of Transportation and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Inc., to close the rail/highway crossing at Charles Street is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing was entered into evidence and said notice was amended to reflect that the distance of an existing crossing north of the proposed crossing was 2,208' + north rather than 1,500' + north. The application was also changed to reflect that the proposed roadway was to extend the limits of a right of way to 120' instead of 100'. The change would place the mile post at a slightly different location. Upon examination of the area and taking testimony from the three attorneys involved in this hearing, it is the findings of this Hearing Officer that the change in location and the change in the proposed roadway is not of sufficient consequence that the hearing should have been postponed and re- noticed. Inasmuch as the parties directly involved were present, the owners of the railroad were represented, the owners of the Petitioner corporation were represented, there were representatives from the County and from the Florida Department of Transportation. A re-notice with the minor changes in location and in the width of the right of way would have been sent to the same representatives. The Notice of Hearing met the requirements of notice of public hearing. Petitioner Suntree Development Corporation is proposing to construct a connector road between Wickham Road and U.S. 1 approximately 2,208' south of an existing two-lane signalized (warning bells, lights, and gates) road crossing on Pineda Avenue in south Brevard County, Florida. The proposed road is to be four-laned with 120 foot right of way including a 20 foot medium strip. The road would be an access between U.S. 1 and the Suntree Community, a new community on approximately 2,800 acres of land which is predicted to have approximately 35,000 to 40,000 people after total development which is estimated to be completed within a 15 year period. The road would be a limited access with acceleration and deacceleration lines on U.S. 1 with an estimated total anticipated average daily traffic of from 23,000 to 60,000 trips per day. The proposed crossing involves a Type IV cantilevered signalization with bells, flashing lights and gates to be activated by trains. Cost of signalization and maintenance is to be borne by the Suntree Development Corporation. Petitioner is the primary owner of all the lands involved, but does not own all of the right of way needed to construct the crossing. Building is presently limited to a country club, sewage treatment plants, about a mile of roadway and two single family homes under construction and plans for the construction of some forty homes within the next few months. The proposed crossing was approved by the Brevard County Commission with the understanding that the crossing at Pineda Avenue would not be closed. The Florida East Coast Railway track in this area is a single track with 18 through freight trains a day which travel about 60 m.p.h. at the proposed crossing location. Two local freights move at unscheduled times across the railroad tracks. The tracks in the vicinity of the proposed crossing is nearly straight. The Florida East Coast Railway Company owns the right of way over the tracks and opposes the opening of another crossing in such close proximity to the crossing at Pineda Avenue, at this time. Storage capacity or storage area is the area in which cars can stand while awaiting clearance to proceed. The proposed road will contain 1,800' of storage area with 850' on the Wickham Road side and 950' on the U.S. 1 side. Using the average daily traffic figure when the community is developed, as calculated by Petitioner, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 3.28 minutes. Using the average daily traffic figures when the community is developed, as calculated by the Florida Department of Transportation, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 1.27 minutes. The Florida Department of Transportation recommends that an overpass be constructed rather than the at-grade crossing. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Pineda Avenue crossing can serve the vehicular traffic demand at present; Petitioner's plans for development, if realized, will demand another railroad cross- ing to serve the community; The proposed at-grade crossing is in such close proximity to U.S. 1 that it would be hazardous to vehicular traffic on U.S. 1 and the proposed Suntree entry road when the community is developed.
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 =================================================================
