The Issue The granting or denial of a permit to open a public at-grade crossing as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, 1977.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant petitions for a public at-grade crossing constructed in the vicinity of Mt. Dora, Florida, and 1,202 feet west of Milepost ATA-794 across the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company tracks. The purpose of this proposed crossing is to give public access from State Road 500, also known as Old U.S. Highway #441, to a shopping center, said shopping center containing a Publix Super Market, an Eckerd Drugs and a number of other retail stores to serve the public needs of Mt. Dora; all of the parties hereto having stipulated to the need for said crossing for public access to the shopping center, as the Applicant has no other means of ingress and egress to the shopping center which is completely constructed and ready for opening. The proposed crossing shall be a four-lane drive way, 64 feet in width, with two 24 foot paved access roads and a 16 foot median in the center. There are no permitted public at-grade crossings in the immediate vicinity; however, there are existing private grade crossings on both the east and west boundary of the shopping center which are used by the public. The existing grade crossing on the east is 787 feet from the proposed crossing, being DOT crossing #621-816X; the grade crossing on the west is 430 feet from the proposed crossing, being DOT crossing #621-818L. The Applicant has agreed that the only public access to the shopping center would be across the subject proposed public at-grade crossing and the public and the employees of the Applicant would be prevented from crossing the at-grade crossings on the east and west of the property by a chain-link fence to be constructed across the paved access roads that could allow traffic to use the two existing private at-grade crossings. The chain-link fence on the east side would be solid with no openings; the chain-link fence on the west side would contain an 8 foot gate which would be locked. The sole purpose of the gate would be to provide emergency vehicle access to the city of Mt. Dora for fire trucks, police or other emergency vehicles should the necessity arise for such access. The public would be unable, except in an emergency situation, to obtain access to the shopping center by using the existing private at-grade crossings to the east and west of the proposed public at-grade crossing. Applicant has shown that the shopping center is virtually complete and ready for opening and that there is an economic need and public necessity for said shopping center as shown by the market surveys done by the Applicant, by Publix Super Markets and Eckerd Drugs, and that it would work an economic hardship on the Applicant and deprive the citizens of Mt. Dora from the use of said shopping facilities if the public at-grade crossing is delayed in opening. It has been determined by the Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation that the immediate installation of the signals called for herein would adversely affect the scheduled installation of signal improvements at grade crossings deemed to have a higher statewide priority. The Applicant has agreed to provide two flagmen to be located at each of the paved entranceways to the proposed at-grade crossing to prevent traffic from entering or leaving the shopping center during train movements. Said persons shall be on duty between the hours of 2:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. or dusk, whichever occurs first, which are the hours of train movement across the proposed public at-grade crossing, there being at this time 3 trains per week, resulting in 6 movements over the proposed new public at-grade railroad crossing, with no night train movements and a train speed of 30 miles per hour. Further, said guards or flagmen shall have available to them a manual switch to control the vehicular traffic light on State Road 500, also known as Old U.S. 441, to prevent traffic movement while trains are crossing. The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad has stipulated that they will flag the proposed public at-grade crossing on any train movements other than during the times set forth above; Stipulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked Petitioner's Exhibit 1(a) and (b). The responsibility for the watchmen or flagmen at said crossing would end when the railroad active grade crossing advance warning devices become operational. The Applicant has further agreed to the Department of Transportation's recommendation to install, at the Applicant's cost, Class 4 signal devices with preemption of the vehicular traffic signal on State Road 500, also known as Old U.S. 441. The parties herein have agreed that there is a need for the proposed crossing and have no objection to the proposed crossing and signalization. The City of Mount Dora contends that a second public crossing is needed to serve the public.
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 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On March 26, 1979, the Department filed an application for the closing of two railroad grade crossings known as Orange Street at Milepost A-825.48 and Murphy Street at Milepost A-830.30. Both crossings are located within the corporate limits of Davenport, Florida. The track which intersects the crossings services four passenger and ten freight-trains each day. The speed limit over the crossings is restricted by city ordinance to fifty miles per hour. Neither of the crossings is equipped with active grade crossing traffic control devices. Prior to recommending the closing of a crossing, a Railroad Committee within the Department meets and reviews petitions for closure. The committees primary concern in deciding whether to close a crossing is public safety and a secondary concern is public necessity. Additionally, convenience of the local population Is considered. The Orange Street crossing is utilized primarily by passenger cars and small trucks. In the twenty-four hour period in which traffic was counted, 696 vehicles used this crossing. The profile of the Orange Street crossing is very poor because the road is approximately seven feet higher than the railroad tracks, thus requiring a motorist to stop on a steep downhill grade when approaching the crossing. Cross-bucks are the only signalization at the crossing. The Department has proposed two alternate routes, Magnolia and Bay Streets, for the traffic presently utilizing the Orange Street crossing. Magnolia Street has recently been renovated and is scheduled for installation of flashing lights and gates in October, 1980. Because of the renovation and installation of lights, Magnolia can accommodate the expected added traffic. Bay Street currently has flashing lights and can accommodate the anticipated added traffic since it had a traffic count of 547 vehicles in a twenty-four hour period. There would be no substantive difference in adverse travel time for a motorist using either Magnolia or Bay Streets as opposed to Orange. Both crossings are safer than Orange Street. The Department does not propose to close sidewalks which cross the tracks at Orange Street and are utilized primarily by residents of a nearby retirement home. In regard to the other crossing which the Department seeks to close, Murphy Street, two alternate crossings are suggested, Magnolia Street and Bargain Barn Road. During a twenty-four hour period in which traffic was counted, 256 vehicles used the Murphy Street crossing. This crossing is inherently dangerous for long trucks or tractor-trailer vehicles due to its abrupt vertical profile or "hump." The Murphy Street crossing ends in a "T" intersection and its closing would not hinder police or emergency services. The Magnolia Street crossing can accommodate the increased traffic which will result from the closing of Murphy Street. This crossing is almost level and is approximately 1,600 feet from Murphy Street crossing. Bargain Barn Road or State Road 547, is another alternate crossing. This crossing is safer than Murphy Street in that lights and gates were installed in March, 1980. It is 1,200-1,300 feet or a quarter of a mile away from the proposed closed crossing and would not cause adverse travel for local motorists presently using Murphy Street. The current traffic count at Bargain Barn is approximately 732 cars per day which would increase to approximately 860 if Murphy Street were closed.
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing by new roadway construction at the intersection of Berryhill Road and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad SYA 877-1610' South, Pasco County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail/ highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Robert K. Reese of Pasco County, County Commission District IV, Florida. The crossing location is in the municipality of Holiday. The local popular name of the street or roadway is Berryhill Roadway. The crossing is across the tracks of the Seaboard Coast Line railroad. The railroad mile post distance and direction is SYA 877-1610' south. The crossing would serve a subdivision known as Forest Hills East. The only entrance into the Forest Hills East Subdivision is a crossing by way of Elizabeth Avenue. This crossing is unsignalized and requires vehicular traffic to cross two spur line railroad tracks. There is a third possible entrance into the subdivision through a crossing known as Tumbleweeds but this entrance is undeveloped and is not now being utilized. The Forest Hills East Subdivision projects 250 single family dwellings in the development. There are no current plans to build condominium or apartment structures. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad previously approved water and sewer crossings underneath the railroad tracks at the Berryhill proposed crossing. There are deceleration and acceleration lanes and paving on the state road S-595 which leads up to the subdivision. There is an estimated three trains per week which would utilize the crossing and there is an unobstructed field of view from the center of the railroad track 1500 feet to the south and 700 feet to the north. On the proposed crossing proceeding in the western direction there is am available visibility of 89 feet south and 120 feet north with a train proceeding at 15 miles per hour. After public hearing in 1974 involving this same proposed crossing in which Dreher Construction Company, the developer of the subdivision, was the applicant, the Respondent, Department of Transportation, directed an issuance of the permit finding need but the issuance of the permit was conditioned upon the installation and maintenance of automatically operated signals consisting of flashing lights and ringing bells at the proposed crossing as the required safety measure. No permit was granted. The roadway has been built and access to the subdivision across the tracks is now complete except for signalization. Because of no signalization the entrance is now blocked for ingress or egress although at least two new homes have been constructed in the subdivision. The cost of the installation of the signalization which had been recommended by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, in 1974 and is still recommended, is between $30,000 and $40,000 with additional maintenance costs. The cost of the signalization of wooden cross bucks, stop signs and speed bumps with minimal maintenance costs is obviously much less although no evidence was submitted as to actual cost. The present applicant for the Berryhill crossing, the Pasco County Commission, District IV, represented by its Transportation-chairman Robert K. Reese requests that the permit for the proposed Berryhill crossing be granted without the requirement that electronic signalization be required. A need was cited for an additional crossing to serve the residents of the subdivision in addition to normal travel. Additional needs were cited by the fire department and hospital emergency vehicles. It was noted that many of the residents are retirees and that at times the one existing crossing is blocked by trains across the track. The applicant states that it is unwilling to expend county monies for the recommended electronic signalization. The developer of the subdivision is unwilling to install and maintain the electronic signalization. A large number of the residents of the subdivision want the proposed crossing opened immediately and at the hearing indicated that they felt that the roadside flashing lights were unnecessary and that they thought the cross buck and stop signs were all that is necessary. From a personal viewing of the Forest Hills East Subdivision and the crossing available to the residents therein, together with the evidence submitted, the testimony of parties who have substantial interest in the proposed crossing and after listening to the oral arguments of counsels at the hearing and the briefs submitted thereafter, the Hearing Officer further finds: There is an undisputed need for a crossing in addition to the present crossing to serve the subdivision. The present crossing is less safe than the proposed railroad crossing would be although both crossings are needed to serve the subdivision. The normal number of trains trafficking at the proposed Berryhill crossing is three times a week with a maximum scheduled speed of the train at 20 miles per hour. The crossing is needed and signalization of wooden cross arms and stop signs and speed zones would serve the public interest adequately although manual flagging of the train and the installation of flashing lights and ringing bells might be required at a future time. The need to the subdivision and the residents therein would be better served by opening the proposed Berryhill crossing inasmuch as it would give two entrances into the subdivision.
Recommendation Grant the permit for a period of one (1) year with wooden cross arms, a stop sign and traffic bumps as signalization and safety measures. Reevaluate after one year from date hereof. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. James Parker, Esquire Delzer, Edwards, Martin, Coulter & Parker Post Office Box 279 Port Richey, Florida 33568 Jeffrey H. Savlov, Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coast Lime Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 =================================================================
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 The issue is whether the Department of Transportation ("Department") may issue a permit authorizing CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSXT") to close public-railroad highway- grade crossing 627445-K (the "Crossing") located at SE 222nd Street in Hawthorne, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department has authority over public railroad- highway grade crossings in Florida, including the authority to issue permits for the opening and closing of crossings. § 335.141(1)(a), Fla. Stat.2/ The Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") has an "Action Plan" to improve grade-crossing safety. A key element of that plan is the consolidation of redundant and unnecessary highway-rail grade crossings. The FRA's goal is for each state to reduce railroad crossings by 25 percent. The Department's criteria for closing railroad-highway grade crossings are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-57.012(2)(c), as follows: Closure of Public Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings. In considering an application to close a public railroad-highway grade crossing, the following criteria will apply: Safety. Necessity for rail and vehicle traffic. Alternate routes. Effect on rail operations and expenses. Excessive restriction to emergency type vehicles resulting from closure. Design of the grade crossing and road approaches. Presence of multiple tracks and their effect upon railroad and highway operations. On June 30, 2010, CSXT submitted a Railroad Grade Crossing Application seeking closure of the Crossing, based on the redundancy of the Crossing in relation to other available crossings. The Crossing is located at SE 222nd Street in Hawthorne. 222nd Street is a two-lane urban local road running north and south, beginning at 69th Avenue and ending at 75th Avenue. The street crosses CSXT railroad tracks between SE 73rd Avenue and 74th Lane in a north-south direction. The surrounding area consists of residences, a veterinary hospital, a city-owned park, and some small commercial uses. The railroad right-of-way at the Crossing is operated by CSXT. The Crossing includes a timber and asphalt surface over a single mainline track. It has no sidewalk and is designed for automobile use only. The rail speed limit at the Crossing is 20 to 25 miles per hour. Petitioner, Dr. Shane Henry, is the owner of the veterinary hospital near the Crossing and was the only testifying witness familiar with the actual movement of the trains at the Crossing. Dr. Henry credibly testified that their actual speed at the Crossing is no greater than 5 miles per hour. Two local trains pass through the Crossing three times per week. A Department traffic study showed that 53 vehicles crossed the track at the Crossing in a 24-hour weekday period. No school buses use the Crossing. The posted speed limit for vehicles at the Crossing is 10 miles per hour. There are no active warning signals such as flashing lights or crossbars at the Crossing. Reflective crossbuck signs have been installed at the Crossing to alert drivers that they are approaching a railroad track. Train crews are required to sound their horns in warning as they approach the Crossing. Approximately 264 feet to the east of the Crossing is another railroad crossing at U.S. 301, which is the main north- south thoroughfare in Hawthorne. U.S. 301 is a four-lane highway that is heavily traveled in comparison to SE 222nd Street. Approximately 475 feet to the west of the Crossing is another railroad crossing at SE 221st Street. Southeast 221st Street is a two-lane north-south connector for Hawthorne's business district. The railroad crossings at U.S. 301 and SE 221st Street have active signals with crossbars lowering and lights flashing when trains pass. The Department sent a diagnostic team to examine and evaluate the Crossing. The team recommended that the Crossing be closed as redundant to the safer crossings nearby. The Department presented the proposed closure to the Hawthorne City Commission at a public meeting on July 20, 2010. Dr. Henry attended the meeting and voiced his opposition to the closure. Dr. Henry's Lake Area Animal Hospital is located at the corner of U.S. 301 and 74th Lane. The animal hospital is open on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. A small city park is located across the Crossing from the animal hospital. Dr. Henry testified that he tells his clients to walk their pets to the park to calm them down. Clients needing stool or urine samples are also advised to walk their pets to the park while waiting. Dr. Henry testified that closing the Crossing would limit his clients' access to the park and force them onto U.S. 301, which is heavily traveled by vehicles. However, there are alternative places to walk animals near the hospital that would not force the clients directly onto U.S. 301, including a side yard of the hospital premises. Dr. Henry may consider these less calming for the animals than the park, but they do not appear to endanger the animals. In deciding whether to authorize the closure of the Crossing, the Department considered the seven criteria listed in rule 14-57.012(2)(c): safety; necessity for rail and vehicle traffic; alternate routes; effect on rail operations and expenses; excessive restrictions to emergency vehicles resulting from closure; design of the grade crossing and road approaches; and presence of multiple tracks and their effect on railroad and highway operations. These criteria were considered in light of the overall objective "to reduce the accident/incident frequency and severity at public railroad-highway grade crossings, and improve rail and motor vehicle operating efficiency." Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-57.012(1). As to the "safety" criterion, the Department's first consideration was the potential for collisions of vehicles and trains at the Crossing. The Department made the following credible findings concerning safety at the Crossing: The SE 222nd Street crossing is signalized with crossbucks only (i.e., passive signalization) without any active warning devices (i.e., lights and gates). Cautious drivers would stop at the subject crossing and look both ways along the track to determine whether a train is approaching and to estimate its speed. In the event that following vehicles do not anticipate such stops and/or fail to maintain safe-stopping distance, collisions may result. In addition, the presence of the crossing itself may cause non-train collisions. Exemplified by a driver stopping suddenly to avoid collision with an oncoming train, the driver may lose control of the vehicle and collide with a roadside object. These types of potential collisions would be avoided with the elimination of the crossing. Currently there are no recorded accidents at the crossing; however, the opportunity exists for collisions, train and non-train, when a crossing exists. Although accident history is taken into account, it is not the sole determining factor, in as much as the prospective crossing closure has relatively low vehicular use and, thereby, fewer accidents. An accident does not have to occur before considering a crossing closure. Janice Bordelon, a Department rail specialist, was a member of the Department's diagnostic team. At the final hearing, Ms. Bordelon testified that the timber and asphalt surface of the Crossing was in poor condition and could cause a driver to focus his attention on finding a smooth pathway rather than looking for oncoming trains. As to the "necessity for rail and vehicle traffic" and "alternate route" criteria, the Department concluded that the Crossing is not a necessity for rail or vehicular traffic because of the ready availability of alternate routes. The Department determined that there were alternate routes and parallel roads on each side of the Crossing, and residents, schools, emergency response, and businesses would not be negatively affected by the closure of the Crossing. Closure of the Crossing to vehicular traffic would have no effect on rail traffic. Florida guidelines for public crossing closures provide that closure should be considered where there are fewer than 3,000 vehicles per day using the crossing and where there are crossings located closer than one-half mile apart. As noted above, only 53 vehicles were recorded at the Crossing over a 24- hour weekday period. The Department determined that rerouting such a low volume of vehicles to other roads would not have a significant impact on the level of service of the alternate routes. The Department specifically considered Dr. Henry's objections and concluded as follows: A veterinarian clinic at the corner of 74th Lane and N. Main Street (US 301/SR 200) has stated that closure would require their clients to be rerouted onto N. Main Street (US 301/SR 200), a more hazardous route. However, a timing study of the location shows that clients visiting the clinic have a safe alternate by traveling one block south on SE 222nd Street to 75th Avenue and proceeding north on SE 221st Street or south on Johnson Street. This route takes less than two minutes and does not require traveling onto N. Main Street (US 301/SR 200). Ms. Bordelon testified that she performed the referenced timing study and confirmed the findings thereof. She stated that alternative routes are simple to find in Hawthorne because the city's streets are laid out in grid fashion. There are parallel roads on either side of the Crossing, and the closing of the Crossing would not leave any property landlocked. Ms. Bordelon's timing study established that there are at least two alternate routes for vehicles, each of which would add a driving time of less than two minutes. As noted above, the 221st Street crossing is about 475 feet from the Crossing and the U.S. 301 crossing is about 264 feet from the Crossing, providing nearby alternatives to the Crossing after its closure. As to the "effect on rail operations and expenses" criterion, the Department made the following findings: The elimination of the rail crossing at SE 222nd Street would benefit the Railroad and the City in the reduction of liability and maintenance expenses. The removal of the crossing would eliminate the cost of upgrading and maintaining the crossing. The Department's Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 130 funds are annually distributed and utilized on crossings within each District based on a diagnostic team's evaluation of the prioritized crossings' need for safety enhancement.3 Hawthorne has been the recipient of a major safety project with the construction of the $42 million grade separation project at SR 20/Hawthorne Road and US 301/SR 200. The Department has also scheduled a $375,000 crossing surface project at US 301/SR 200 to be installed in the coming fiscal year. The US DOT Action Plan specifically states: when improving one crossing (i.e., grade separation or crossing improvements) consider the elimination of the adjacent crossing. The closure of SE 222nd Street reflects the guidance of the Federal Railroad Administration's crossing consolidation plan. The elimination of the SE 222nd Street crossing would positively impact rail operations in the reduction of horn blowing and the elimination of trains blocking the roadway. The elimination of both of these factors at this site would reduce complaints received from motorists and nearby homeowners. Cliff Stayton, director of community affairs and safety for CSX, testified that at any public crossing, federal regulations require the operating railroad to sound the horn at least 15 seconds but no more than 20 seconds before the train enters the crossing.4/ Mr. Stayton pointed out that here there are three crossings within a half-mile of each other, each of which requires the sounding of the horn. Eliminating the Crossing would reduce the nuisance factor of the horn to the nearby residents. As to the "excessive restrictions to emergency vehicles resulting from closure" criterion, the Department found that the closure of the Crossing would have no effect on emergency vehicle access. Alachua County provides EMS service to Hawthorne, and the vehicles come from a county fire and rescue station eight miles west on S.R. 20. The vehicles could access any residence on SE 222nd Street by taking S.R. 20 to U.S. 301. The hospitals serving Hawthorne are all located in the Gainesville area. Ms. Bordelon testified that emergency vehicles use main arterial roads such as U.S. 301 rather than urban local roads such as SE 222nd Street, and the closure of the Crossing would have no adverse impact to the provision of emergency services on either side of the Crossing. As to the "design of the grade crossing and road approaches" criterion, the Department found that the Crossing's timber and asphalt surface provides a rough transition from the road surface, with noticeable dipping and bouncing. The approaches to the Crossing are cracked and patched, adding to the rough transition. As noted above, the uneven surface may cause a driver to pay more attention to choosing a smooth path over the Crossing rather than determining whether a train is approaching. Though there are no recorded accidents at the Crossing, its design and state of repair lead to the finding that closing the Crossing would offer at least some incremental safety enhancement to motorists. As to the "presence of multiple tracks and their effect on railroad and highway operations" criterion, Ms. Bordelon testified that it did not apply in this case because the Crossing has only a single track. In addition to his argument that his practice will be inconvenienced by having access to the park cut off, Dr. Henry alleged that disabled persons may have difficulty accessing his clinic via wheelchair if they are forced to cross at U.S. 301 rather than at the Crossing. Dr. Henry alleges that this constitutes a failure to offer a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. No direct evidence was presented to support this speculative claim. In summary, the Department's findings leading to the recommendation that the Crossing be closed are supported by competent substantial evidence. Mr. Henry's concerns regarding the impact of closure on his business were sincere and well expressed at the hearing, but were insufficient to rebut the Department's prima facie showing that the criteria set forth in rule 14-57.012(2)(c) have been satisfied and the Crossing should be closed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the requested permit for closure of public railroad-highway grade crossing 627445-K located at SE 222nd Street in Hawthorne, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2012.
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
The Issue Whether the application for an at grade vehicle railroad crossing permit should be issued to the City of Holly Hill by the Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact The City of Holly Hill, Florida, filed an application with DOT for an at grade railroad crossing permit on Tenth Street at Milepost 107+1513', in the city of Holly Hill. The DOT denied the City's application by letter dated November 27, 1991, which enclosed the Department's intent to deny the permit. The City petitioned and received a hearing to consider its application. The City of Holly Hill is located due north of the City of Daytona Beach on the east coast of the state of Florida. It stretches west approximately a mile from the Halifax River, and runs north for approximately two miles from the northern boundaries of the City of Daytona Beach. Tenth Street, where the proposed railroad crossing would be located, is a local street running east and west in the City of Holly Hill, Florida. West of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, Tenth Street connects with Center Avenue and continues further west to connect with Nova Road, both of which are major north/south connectors. To the east of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, Tenth Street runs less than one block and terminates at its intersection with US 1, the major north/south arterial road in Holly Hill. Immediately east of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks in the vicinity of Tenth Street, the City of Holly Hill maintains Holly Land Park, a major recreational area in downtown Holly Hill. Immediately to the west of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, the City of Holly Hill maintains a nature trail and facilities related to its public works department. The City seeks the permit for an at grade crossing alleging that (1) a large number of pedestrians are illegally crossing the track and have persisted in doing so notwithstanding warnings and citations; and (2) the City feels that opening a crossing at Tenth Street would relieve bad traffic congestion existing on Eleventh Street just north of Tenth at Eleventh's intersection with US 1. Video tapes and the observations of police officers of the City of Holly Hill establish a significant level of pedestrian traffic by adults and children over the railroad tracks between the western and eastern ends of Tenth Street. This practice is very dangerous. Some of the pedestrians walk their bicycles over the railroad tracks at this location. The majority of the young people crossing the tracks in this vicinity are moving east to utilize the facilities in Holly Land Park or moving west to go to the middle school and grammar school located respectively at the intersections of Center Avenue and Walker Street and Center Avenue and Fifteenth Street. This is a popular route because of the heavy vehicle traffic on Eleventh Street and Eighth Street. Warnings, citations, and patrols have not halted the illegal crossing of the tracks. Eleventh Street is located 1300 feet to the north of Tenth Street and also runs east and west from the Halifax River westward to beyond Interstate 95. Plans call for the development of an interchange at the intersection of Interstate 95 and Eleventh Street. Eleventh Street appears to be the only street in downtown Holly Hill which moves directly west in this manner. From Nova Road east to US 1, Eleventh Street runs parallel to and north of a large drainage canal. Two shopping centers are located at the intersection of Eleventh Street and Nova Road. Eleventh Street is so close to this drainage feature that pedestrian walks on the southern side of Eleventh Street were removed. Because of this drainage structure, Eleventh Street cannot be inexpensively widened. To the south of Tenth Street 1320 feet, Eighth Street runs east and west from the Halifax River to Nova Road. Both Eleventh and Eighth Streets are two-way streets along their entire length. The City bases it petition to open the crossing upon traffic congestion caused by east bound traffic on Eleventh Street seeking to turn left on US 1, and by north bound traffic on US 1 seeking to turn left onto Eleventh Street when Eleventh Street is blocked by rail traffic. The I-95/Eleventh Street interchange will increase traffic congestion on Eleventh Street. The City asserts that opening the proposed crossing would alleviate this congestion because traffic using Eleventh Street would then use Tenth Street. The traffic count on Eleventh, Tenth, and Eighth Streets was measured by the county. The traffic on Eleventh Street was 10,744; on Tenth Street was 1,019; and on Sixth Street was 6,153. According to a traffic projection run by the county traffic operations supervisor, 1,000 vehicles would be diverted from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street if a vehicle at grade crossing were opened at Tenth Street. Although this projection is suspect because it was made without any origin and destination surveys being done, the shift of 1,000 vehicles from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street is negligible in terms of its present and projected impact on Eleventh Street. It was uncontraverted that a ground level pedestrian crossing with adequate gates and signals would permit pedestrians to cross the railroad tracks quickly and therefore reduce their exposure to train/bicycle accidents. (T- 81,135.) Opening an at grade crossing on Tenth Street would create a greater potential for car/train accidents by increasing the exposure of vehicle traffic to railroad traffic. This was also uncontraverted. The fire station is currently located in the back of City Hall which is located immediately across US 1 from Holly Land Park. Plans exist to move the fire station from its present current location to a location in the vicinity of the Public Works Department along Tenth Avenue. The public library which is currently located at Holly Land Park affronting on US 1 may be relocated to the old school building located south of the city hall. Movement from the fire- station at its proposed location would be no better or worse than it is now because Tenth Street does not extend east across US 1. Emergency equipment will have to use Eighth Street or Eleventh Street to go east, and these streets are also the best routes west. The proposed crossing is not necessary based upon the traffic studies prepared by the City. Assuming the shift of 1,000 cars from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street, this would not warrant the expense and the potential hazard generated by permitting the proposed railroad crossing. It was uncontraverted that the best way to solve the congestion problem on Eleventh Street would be to widen it. However, it was universally acknowledged that this would be very expensive. While evidence is contradictory, the most credible testimony supports using one-way pairs on Eleventh and Eighth Streets as a low cost interim measure to improve traffic flow along the arterial routes. (T-112,145 et seq., and 173.) In addition to the crossings located at Eleventh and Eighth Streets, there are also crossing located at next to through streets south of Eighth, and at Fromich Street north of Eleventh. There would be more than five public crossings located within one mile of railroad track if a crossing were opened at Tenth Street.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered approving a pedestrian at grade crossing at Tenth Street in the City of Holly Hill, Volusia County, Florida; and That the Petition for a public at grade vehicular railroad crossing at Tenth Street in the City of Holly Hill, Volusia County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-0942 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Petitioner's Recommended Order Paragraphs 1, 2, 8 Recommended order paragraph no. 4 Paragraph 3, 5, 7, 10 Recommended order paragraph no. 7 Paragraph 4 Recommended order paragraph no. 8 Paragraph 6 Rejected, Data in Paragraph is more credible Paragraph 9 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 11 Immaterial Paragraph 12 Cumulative Paragraphs 13, 14 Immaterial Paragraph 15 Contrary to the fact that Tenth Street ends at US 1 Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 Contrary to more credible evidence Paragraph 19 .027 represents one train/car collision every four years. If you are in the car, that is significant. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 All these improvements do not establish the necessity for the proposed crossing and appear to be counter to good land use and traffic planning. Paragraph 26 No credible evidence to support this. Paragraph 27 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 28 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 29 Immaterial Paragraph 30 "de facto" crossings don't exist Paragraph 31 Immaterial Paragraph 32, 33, 34, 35 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 36 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 37 Speculative Paragraph 38 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 39 Paragraph 9 Respondent's Recommended Order Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1, 2 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 6, 10, 11 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 13, 14 COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Edward F. Simpson, Jr., Esquire Randal A. Hayes, Esquire Moore, Wood, Simpson, Correy, McKinnon and Vulkeja Post Office Box 305 Ormond Beach, FL 32175 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the at- grade railroad crossing over the CSX railroad tracks located at Mottie Road in Gibsonton should be closed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, CSX Transportation, Inc. operated a railroad running generally north and south through the city of Gibsonton, located in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for the licensing and permitting of at-grade railroad crossings located on the public roads of this state. The Petitioner, Concerned Citizens of Gibsonton Area, Inc. is a private citizens group whose purpose is the betterment of living conditions in the community. The at-grade crossing in issue is located where Mottie Road crosses the CSX tracks in Gibsonton. On January 26, 1996, CSX submitted an application to the Department to close the Mottie Road crossing. That crossing was one of three crossings proposed for closing. Pursuant to the requirements of the Department, a public hearing was conducted on the closings at which the railroad presented its proposal and affected citizens were given an opportunity to submit matters in opposition to the closings. On April 25, 1996, after a review of the matters submitted by the applicant and by the public at the hearing held for that purpose, the Department issued the instant Intent to Issue permit. There is only one track at the Mottie Road crossing. Mottie Road is paved and is approximately twenty feet wide at the crossing. It supports an average daily traffic of approximately 434 vehicles per day. It is, primarily, a rather short residential street though it does carry some commercial traffic. It runs east and west. One end of Mottie Road ends where it intersects with Roosevelt Road on the east and the other ends at US Highway 41 just west of the crossing. The crossing has no active signal, but motorists are advised of the crossing by cross-bucks at each side. Nundy Avenue is the east-west roadway just north of Mottie Road. Whereas Mottie Road runs for only several blocks, Nundy Avenue runs from Lula Street, a north-south street west of US Highway 41, east to its intersection with East Bay Road, almost out to Interstate Highway 75. Nundy Avenue is the first east-west thoroughfare south of Gibsonton Drive, which intersects with Interstate Highway 75 to the east of town. It is primarily a two lane residential road. The Gibsonton shopping area is located primarily on Gibsonton Drive east of US Highway 41. The crossing at Nundy Avenue is presently guarded by cantilever flashing lights. These lights are scheduled to be upgraded to flashing lights and gates sometime during 1997. The average daily traffic count on Nundy Avenue is 2,948 vehicles, including 21 school busses. Nundy Avenue is rated for 5,000 vehicles per day. It can handle without difficulty any through traffic diverted from Mottie Road by virtue of the proposed closing of the crossing. Petitioners object to the closing of the Mottie Road crossing for several reasons, the primary of which is safety. According to Operation Life Saver, a non-profit organization, eighty percent of car/train accidents are due to driver error - stupidly driving across the tracks. Mr. Johnson, a member of the Petitioner and its spokesman at the hearing, contends that closure of the Mottie Road crossing will stop the crossings but it will also increase traffic at other crossings which will increase driver frustration. Mr. Johnson notes that the wreck of a 100 car train at the crossing at Pennsylvania Street, just south of the Alafia River not far north of town, would block traffic down through the Nundy Avenue crossing, but would not block the Mottie Road crossing. In the event Mottie Road were closed, however, that same wreck would cause an increase in emergency response time by eight to ten minutes. This could result in elderly people residing on Mottie Road who need life support having no way to get out in the event Roosevelt Road were also blocked by an accident. The likelihood of this combination of events is remote. The closest emergency medical service facility is located at the fire station on Gibsonton Drive. If that one was blocked due to a closing of Mottie and Roosevelt, the next closest facility is in Riverview, north of the Alafia River, or at Apollo Beach, six or seven miles south on US Highway 41. Mr. Johnson contends that safety is not the real reason CSX wants to close the crossing at Mottie Road. He claims the purpose is to save CSX money. No evidence was produced to support that contention however. Mr. Johnson also questions the accuracy of the traffic counts and the other statistics weighed by the Department in its evaluation of the application. The crossings were evaluated in the summer months when the population of Gibsonton is approximately 7,000 people. In the winter months of December through early March, the population doubles to almost 14,000 people, he claims. A large segment of this increase is due to the winter influx of carnival people who have large trucks and show equipment which requires a larger turning radius than a semi-trailer. As many as thirty large rigs come and go in that area each season. He asserts that Nundy Avenue is dangerous for trucks to use because the ditch banks beside the road are narrow and deep. Turning onto Mottie Road is easy. Turning onto Nundy Avenue is not. Again, no evidence was presented in support of this contention. Another objection to the closing of Mottie Road is raised by Robert A. Wood, a senior deacon at the neighborhood church. He contends that the closing will interfere with business in the church located at the corner of Church Street and Payne Avenue, currently accessible to a large portion of the congregation who come to church through Mottie Road. Echoing the concern of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wood cites the occurrence of an accident at Nundy Avenue and Roosevelt Road, and contends that such an accident would make it impossible for people to get out if Mottie Road were blocked. Mr. Wood also notes that the railroad bridge over the Alafia River is low and is opened three or four times a day. When trains are stopped south of the bridge because of this, they block all crossings north of Mottie Road. Mr. Wood opines that Nundy Avenue could not handle the extra traffic caused by the closure of Mottie Road without substantial additional modification of its intersection with US Highway 41. Though Mr. Wood is a retired engineer, he has no expertise in traffic management, and his opinions are based primarily on common sense as opposed to engineering practice. A substantial wave of objection to the closure by the residents in the area has been reduced to writing and submitted to the Department and to CSX though it was not presented at hearing. According to Mrs. Martha J. Johnson, vice-president of Concerned Citizens, these concerns were memorialized and furnished to Mr. Webb who was the Department’s point man at the time. Whereas the Department has been responsive, however, the railroad has not. Ms. Johnson is of the opinion that had CSX been more responsive to the community’s expressed concerns, the matter could have been discussed and resolved in an alternative manner. The controversy has come about because of CSX’s attempts to conform to the goals of the Federal Railroad Administration’s stated goal of closing twenty-five percent of all at-grade crossings by the year 2,000. In 1973, the federal Highway Safety Act emphasized crossing accidents and mandated the identification of hazardous crossings to be corrected or closed. The Act provided money to the states to fix or close these crossings, but these funds are not unlimited. From 1973 to the mid-1990’s the fatality rate dropped by fifty percent as a result of these efforts, but now appears to have leveled off. This has led to the conclusion that lights and gates are not the whole answer. Crossings have to be converted to overpasses or closed. Mottie Road is not active enough a road to justify an overpass, and in addition, the physical layout of the area will not support an overpass. As a result, the logical solution is closure. A legislative study done in 1994 revealed that there is an excessive number of crossings and recommended closing some of them. The instant closing proposal is a part of that effort. It costs the railroad approximately $800 per year to maintain this crossing. If signals were installed, (flashing lights), the yearly maintenance cost would increase to $1,500, and the installation of the lights and gates would cost an initial $100,000 to 150,000. Mr. Wollenzein, the railroad’s public projects engineer, looks at several hundred crossings per year from the standpoint of number of vehicles, speed of vehicles, type of vehicles, train traffic, train speed and the distance of one crossing to the next closest crossing. In the instant case, the vehicular traffic amounts to slightly under 500 vehicles per day, and there are five trains per day through the crossing each way. Trains are limited to a maximum speed of 40 mph through the crossings. In Mr. Wollenzein’s opinion, safety of rail and vehicular traffic would be enhanced if this crossing were closed. Closure would be the absolute prohibition of traffic through the crossing and without traffic, there can be no accidents. He drove the area and concluded there were several practical alternative routes which would compensate for the closing of the Mottie Road crossing. Though he cannot be certain closure would not interfere with emergency vehicle service, he does not believe it would. The fire department is located on Gibsonton Drive, east of US 41, co-existing with the EMS facility. Support for the closing also comes from Jack Webb, formerly with the Department and now a transportation engineer employed by the Texas Transportation Institute. Ninety percent of his work deals with railroads and crossing devices, tying those signals into the traffic system. Mr. Webb looked at the Mottie Road crossing site on several occasions, the first time being in September 1995 when some Department employees were evaluating potential closure sites. The Department decision to permit closure was made only after a thorough study of the site and public hearings to afford the public an opportunity to submit matters relating to the proposed action. When the Department contemplates closing an existing crossing, it considers alternate access, traffic, warning devices and the like. Based on the information he was able to gather on this crossing, Mr. Webb concluded there was a viable alternative to the crossing at Mottie Road; the one at Nundy Avenue. The Mottie Road crossing is a timber crossing which is in fair condition. There was no significant rust on the rails nor cracking of the timbers. There was, however, some minor cracking with wear on the timbers. Nundy Avenue, he opines, can handle from four to five thousand vehicles per day, and in his opinion, closing Mottie Road would not overtax Nundy Avenue. Mr. Webb also calculated the additional response times which would be occasioned by closing Mottie Road. According to his figures, EMS support from the Gibsonton Drive fire station would come off Nundy Avenue. Police response time to a critical point on US Highway 41 just east of the crossing on Mottie Road was 1.5 additional minutes from the south, and 45 seconds from the north. A critical point is that point in the neighborhood where additional response time would be the longest. Mr. Webb also checked with EMS, the fire department and the police about response times. The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department estimated that closure of the Mottie Road crossing might slow up their response times slightly from the south but not when coming from other directions. A fire department official opined that additional response time from the Gibsonton and Riverview stations would be nil, and that there would be an additional three to four minutes to come from Summerfield. EMS officials at the Gibsonton station indicated closure would have no impact upon their operation. The EMS official at the central dispatch office indicated the potential for detriment to their operations would be low even from the other stations. Mottie Road is not on a school bus route and bus transportation was not likely to be affected. At the public hearing on this matter some objections were voiced. As a result, the Department reevaluated all 3 crossings proposed for closing. On two of the three, valid arguments against closure were propounded, but neither related to Mottie Road. In the case of Mottie Road, the railroad agreed to construct a pedestrian crossing there even if the vehicle crossing were closed. The Department also considered the issue of turning radii for trucks as encouraged by the public comment. After visiting the site on several different occasions, and measuring the turning radius availability for trucks with fifty feet between axles, Department officials identified but one problem area located at the intersection of Nundy Avenue and Roosevelt Road, and as a result, indicated that the Department would widen the road there to accommodate the trucks’ turning radii without the need to acquire additional property. The Department also found that there is a shopping center on US Highway 41 about one-half mile south of Mottie Road. The Post office is located there as well, but closing Mottie Road would not have any major impact on access to that facility. Based on all the above, Mr. Webb concluded that closure was appropriate. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order granting permission to CSX Transportation, Inc., to close the at grade vehicular crossing over its track at Mottie Road in Gibsonton, subject to the railroad’s agreement to maintain a pedestrian crossing there and to upgrade the vehicular crossing at Nundy Avenue. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert S. Johnson Qualified Representative Jeanie Johnson Second Vice President Concerned Citizens of Gibsonton Area, Inc. Post Office Box 1304 Gibsonton, Florida 33534 Steven H. Shook, Esquire CSX Transportation, Inc. Law Department, J - 150 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Station Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Attention: Diedre Grubbs Mail Street 58 605 Suwannee Street, Suite 535 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing and new rail line construction on Jones Road and Georgia Southern and Florida Railroad - MP 243.
Findings Of Fact The following stipulation was agreed upon and written by the parties: "1. As to the necessity of the opening of the said crossing. Westlake is a develop- ment where in excess of $25,000,000 has been spent in a project of the Georgia Southern & Florida Railway, of which $15,000,000 has al- ready been spent to date. Such project has been reviewed and approved by the Jacksonville Planning Board and the public need has been recognized and determined for this residential and light industrial development. As to the facility. The track will be an extension of existing lead track that was originally considered and approved by the De- partment of Transportation crossing Garden Street and is an extension south to the Appli- cant's property lime. Said extension is to serve the need of said development and must be extended across Jones Road to facilitate the services of light industrial purposes. Said track is an extension being two miles in length. Safety and signalization. To meet the required safety standards of the State of Florida, Applicant agrees to install cantalevered flashing lights and bells, side mounted, which are referred to as Type 2 installation. Applicant also agrees to provide sign and pavement markings as specified in MUTCD. The parties agree that said construction of signal device will provide the required public safety. The present anticipated need of such crossing of the Applicant are for one train per day rail traffic in and out. Jones Road is a two-lane rural road with posted speed limits of 45 miles an hour. As to the construction. Said plans have been presented and approved by the City Engineer, Jacksonville, Florida. Applicant agrees to pay for the installation and maintenance of signalization. Approximately $35,000 for the installation and $3,000 per year maintenance. Applicant agrees that it is a quasi-public corporation existing in perpetuity. Applicant agrees to abide by the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation and laws of the State of Florida, as well as the ordinance code of the City of Jacksonville." The facts as outlined in the stipulation of the parties are the Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Issue the required permit. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Julie H. Kuntz, Esquire American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida
