The Issue Whether a permit should be granted by the Florida Department of Transportation for a public-at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Section 55000- 6607, State Road (Laurel Oak Drive) Leon County, Parcel 1 (XS0-H) SCL Railroad MP SPA-809.
Findings Of Fact A railroad grade crossing application was submitted by Henry G. Hanson, County Engineer, Leon County, Florida, for a public-at-grade rail highway opening by new roadway construction. The crossing location is in the unincorporated municipality of Woodville, Florida. The local popular name of the street is Laurel Oak Drive. The railroad company is Seaboard Coastline Railroad and the mile post distance and direction is 1,5534 ft. south of SPA- 809. The application stated that "Prior to construction the Board of County Commissioners will adopt the necessary resolutions for the maintenance of the crossing." The cost estimate as indicated on the application was $20,000.00. The application arose as a result of a proposed low cost or rent subsidy type housing development which is proposed to be constructed in the Woodville area in southern Leon County, Florida. The proposed subdivision is to be called "Woodlands" an area which lies west of the street called Tallahassee Street. Between Tallahasse and the proposed subdivision runs the Seaboard Coastline railroad. The subject land is presently owned by a group of people for whom Mr. John Butler is a representative. The proposed subdivision is a cooperative effort by the landowners represented by Mr. Butler, the Tallahassee Housing Authority represented by Mr. Calvin 0gburn and the Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida. Leon County is involved inasmuch as the subdivision as proposed would be dedicated to Leon County, Florida, whereby Leon County would take over maintenance and ownership of the roadways including that portion of the roadway crossing the railroad. The application for the subject crossing was made by Leon County as the ultimate owner of the crossing. At the date of this hearing there is no subdivision but plans for a subdivision have been submitted. The plans are for a low cost housing which was described as houses that would cost between 20 and 23 thousand dollars ($20,000-$23,000) including the cost of the lot and would be approximately 900 to 1000 square feet. The proposal is for 53 lots each within an approximate 75 foot frontage. The Department of Community Affairs administers the rural land fund which is a 2.5 million dollar fund to provide lost cost lots. This department lends money to local governments, housing authorities or small communities and rural areas to buy land and to cause it to be developed as in the subject cause. The position of the Department of Community Affairs is to approve or deny a loan to the Tallahassee Housing Authority. A plat of the proposed subdivision was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs as part of their application for $199,000.00 which would be used to buy the land and developed it. There is no access to the land on which the proposed subdivision would be built except at the proposed site for the subject crossing. The 75 foot lots would cost approximately $3,760.00 each. There are two trains per day on unscheduled runs using the subject railroad tracks. The estimation is that there would be between 300 to 350 vehicles per day using the crossing. The speed of the train is approximately 25 miles per hour. The two lane rural road with 6 foot shoulders as proposed would cross the railroad track. The recommendations of the District Safety Engineer for the Third District employed by the Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, is that a type 3 installation is required. The installation is roadside flashing lights with bells. A representative of the railroad read the following statement from Mr. Tom Hutchinson, Vice President of Maintenance of Seaboard Coastline Railroad, "It will be the railroad's position in this application that there arc no objection to what is proposed with the provision that automatic warning devices are installed and maintained at the expense of the applicant and with further conditions that any changes or alterations or improvements of the cost will be borne by the applicant." The Hearing Officer further finds: That if the proposed subdivision is in fact built and homes sold there would be a need for the proposed railroad crossing. That there would be a need for the proposed railroad crossing prior to the completion of the subdivision inasmuch as there would be a large amount of traffic during the construction of this subdivision. Leon County would maintain the crossing. The safety devices as recommended by the Florida Department of Transportation which is flashing lights and ringing bells is necessary for the safety of those traveling to and from the proposed subdivision. A simple cross buck would be inadequate for the safety of those living or working in the proposed subdivision.
Recommendation Grant the permit upon approval of the project. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Earl O. Black, Esquire County Engineer's Office Leon County Courthouse Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Henry G. Hanson, County Engineer Leon County Courthouse Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. G. S. Burleson, Sr,, P.E. Assistant State Utility Engineer (RRs) Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation should issue a permit for the installation of a railroad crossing on "Citrus Drive Extension," Marion County, Florida, to intersect the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad at a point located approximately 1720 feet northwest of Seaboard Coast Line Mile Post 730.
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony of witnesses for the Petitioner and Respondents and the arguments of the respective counsel on the issues and considering the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner, Marion County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, duly authorized to establish and maintain county roads within the boundaries of Marion County, Florida. Marion County has heretofore filed a Petition with the Department of Transportation of the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 338.21, Florida Statutes, for permission to establish a graded railroad crossing for Citrus Drive Extension, a county road, proposed to intersect the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracks approximately 1,720 feet N.W. of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Mile Post 730. Marion County for a number of years prior to these proceedings has contemplated and endeavored to establish a county road herein referred to as Citrus Drive Extension, a proposed main arterial county road running north and south within Marion County, Florida, for the purposes of connecting existing county and state roads and thereby alleviating traffic on other county and state roads within the vicinity. Citrus Drive Extension would serve that portion of the county which said county expects in the near future to experience rapid development and substantial increase in population. Marion County heretofore has acquired all necessary right-of-way for the establishment of Citrus Drive Extension and a portion of that said right-of- way, that portion being approximately 6,234 feet, acquired from GAC Properties, Inc., by means of Right-Of-Way Deed, contains a reversionary clause which provides that if Citrus Drive Extension is not completed by June 18, 1979, that acquired right-of-way from GAC Properties, Inc., will revert back to Grantor. Citrus Drive Extension as it approaches the proposed railroad crossing from the south to the north contains a curve to the south of the said Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracks which said curve has a centerline radius of 462 feet and has a central angle of curvature 73 degrees 8 feet 56 inches. That railroad traffic on the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracks where the proposed road grade crossing is to be located consists of 16 trains per day with a maximum of 79 miles per hour. The Petition heretofore filed by Marion County for the proposed railroad grade crossing does not contain any provisions for railroad warning devices. The alignment of the road south of the crossing is a north-south road. Near the crossing the road goes into a curve and the crossing is located in a reverse curve, the curve from the south being a relatively sharp curve.
Recommendation Close existing railroad crossing at Citrus Springs Boulevard and Seaboard Coastline Mile-post 763. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of November, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Gordan S. Burleson, Sr. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Livingston, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida James L. Shroads, Esquire 2350 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue By its Motion to Dismiss, Plant City raised the question of the jurisdiction and authority of the Department of Transportation to close a railroad crossing on its own initiative. In short, Plant City argued that under the Home Rule Provisions of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapter 375, Florida Statutes, Plant City had authority to regulate railroad crossings and was the only entity which could initiate the closing of a crossing within the city's corporate limits. The Department of Transportation and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company argued that Section 330.12, Florida Statutes, gave the Department authority to regulate the opening and closing of railroad crossings, and that this authority to open and close crossings anywhere in the state was exclusive. While it was argued that the Department had the authority to initiate such an action on its own initiative without a request from a local government or a railroad, this is not an issue based on the facts presented because the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company initiated the action to close the railroad crossings in question. The Motion to Dismiss was denied on the basis that the Department of Transportation and Plant City had joint authority to regulate railroad crossings in the city; however, the Department had exclusive authority to open and close railroad crossings in the state under Section 338.12(3), Florida Statutes. The remaining issue relates to a factual determination of whether the crossings in question should be closed. It was held that these determinations should be made in light of the criteria for closing railroad crossings and opening crossings as stated in Rule 14-46.03(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. The rule for closing a crossing states that a crossing is a candidate for closing if it does not have active grade crossing devices, has a traffic count of less than 1,000 vehicles per day, and has an access read to an adjacent crossing; however, closing should not be considered if it would increase the traffic on the adjacent crossing to the capacity level, or if the adjacent crossing is already at the capacity level. In addition, the criteria for opening a crossing are necessity, convenience, and safety of rail and vehicular traffic.
Findings Of Fact Gordon Street Crossing The traffic count on the Gordon Street Crossing was taken on several occasions. The highest one-day count recorded was 732 crossings, while the lowest number of crossings for one day was 200. Traffic across this crossing is less than 1,000 crossings per day. The Gordon Street Crossing lacks active grade crossing devices. The most accessible crossing adjacent to the Gordon Street Crossing is located 340 feet west at Warnell Street. Warnell Street is accessible from Gordon Street north of the railroad track via Baker Street and Reynolds Street, a paired one-way system. Warnell Street is accessible from Gordon Street south of the railroad track via Jenkins Street. The next crossing east of Gordon Street is Maryland Avenue, located 1,345 feet to the east. It is accessible north of the railroad track on the Reynolds/Baker Street system, and south of the railroad track on Jenkins Street. The highest traffic count recorded on the Maryland Avenue Crossing for a 24-hour period was 2,784 crossings. This is well below the capacity of this crossing, which is signalized with flashing lights and gates. The highest count recorded on the Warnell Street Crossing was 1,700 crossings in a 24-hour period. This is also well below the maximum traffic count which this crossing can handle. The Warnell Street Crossing has no active signaling devices at this time. Closing of the Gordon Street Crossing would not deny access to any real property, and therefore maintaining the crossing is not necessary to the use and enjoyment of any real property by its owner. Public safety would be enhanced only slightly by the elimination of the Gordon Street Crossing. Most of the benefit of closing this crossing would be derived from the shift of traffic from the Gordon Street Crossing to the signalized Maryland Avenue Crossing. However, the Warnell Street Crossing, which is not signalized and is only 230 feet east, will probably receive the majority of the diverted traffic. This will negate to a degree the benefit of the closing. The inconvenience to the public from closing the Gordon Street Crossing will be minimal because of the Warnell Street route which is very close at hand. Thomas Street Crossing The traffic count on the Thomas Street Crossing was taken on several occasions. The highest one-day count recorded was 640 crossings, while the lowest was 113 crossings. Traffic over the crossing was less than 1,000 vehicles per day. The Thomas Street Crossing is located in the very center of Plant City and is signalized with flashing lights without gates. There are several crossings which provide alternatives to the Thomas Street Crossing. Moving to the east, the next four streets cross the railroad track: Wheeler Street, 230 feet away; Evens Street, 510 feet away; Collins Street, 780 feet away; and Palmer Street, 1,060 feet away. To the west there are two crossings: Walker Street, 270 feet away; and Howard Street, 800 feet away. North of the railroad track these crossings may be reached by the Baker/Reynolds Street paired one-way system or by Mahoney Street, a two-way street. To the south of the railroad track the crossings may be reached on South Drane/Arden Mays. The Thomas Street Crossing is the only one of these crossings which dead-ends immediately south of the railroad track. The highest traffic count recorded on Wheeler Street in one day was 11,760 crossings. The highest count recorded on Walker Street in one day was 1,237 crossings. Traffic capacity at either crossing immediately adjacent to the Thomas Street Crossing would not be pushed to or beyond its designed capacity by the closing of the Thomas Street Crossing. Tie closing of the Thomas Street Crossing would not deny access to any real property, and therefore maintaining the crossing is not necessary to the use and enjoyment of any real property by its owner. The accessibility to multiple alternative crossings east and west of the Thomas Street Crossing would prevent any substantial inconvenience to the public, particularly in light of the fact that the Thomas Street Crossing is the only one of these crossings which is not a through street south of the railroad track. Public safety would be only minimally enhanced by the elimination of this crossing because of the close proximity of the remaining crossings. While it is argued that elimination of any crossing reduces the risk of an auto/train collision, it is the act of crossing the track that creates the risk. The closing of this crossing will not affect the number of crossings but only divert the traffic. The benefit of greater distance between the remaining crossings is nullified by the number of crossings existing so closely to both the east and west of the Thomas Street Crossing. Davis Street Crossing The traffic count on the Davis Street Crossing was taken on several occasions. The highest traffic count recorded was 1,700 cars per day, and the lowest 486. On one other occasion it exceeded 1,000 cars per 24-hour period by 39 crossings. It had a five-day average of 856.4 crossings. The Davis Street Crossing does not have active grade crossing devices. The closest alternative crossing is Howard Street, located east 1,190 feet. The next alternative crossing to the west is Alexander Street, 2,100 feet away. The Howard Street Crossing and the Alexander Street Crossing can be reached south of the railroad track on Haines Street. The Howard Street Crossing can be reached north of the railroad track on the Bakers Reynolds Street paired one-way system or on Mahoney Street. Although north of the railroad track one can travel west from Davis Street to Alexander Street, the routes can only be described as circuitous. Reynolds Street is one-way the wrong way, Mahoney Street is not a through street west of Carey Street, and Baker Street begins to run northwest at Carey Street. The highest traffic count recorded on the Howard Street Crossing was 1,030 crossings per day. The highest traffic count recorded on the Alexander Street Crossing was 18,288 per day. Traffic capacity at either crossing immediately adjacent to the Thomas Street Crossing would not be pushed to or beyond its designed capacity by closing of the Davis Street Crossing. Closing of the Davis Street Crossing would not deny access to any real property, and therefore maintaining the crossing is not necessary to the use and enjoyment of any real property by its owner. Public safety would be enhanced only slightly by the closure of the Davis Street Crossing because of the remaining multiple crossings. The small benefit to public safety would be primarily from the diversion of traffic to the Alexander Street Crossing which is fully signalized with flashing lights and gates. The Davis Street Crossing is essentially flat with good visibility afforded to both train and vehicular traffic. Train traffic would be traveling at reduced speed at the Davis Street Crossing, having entered the city limits of Plant City. Convenience of the public would be adversely affected by the closing of the Davis Street Crossing. The crossing in question carries on some days more than 1,000 cars per day. The average daily traffic count (ADTC) of 856 crossings exceeds that of Howard Street (450 ADTC) and Walker Street (529 ADTC), both of which would be retained. The distances to the alternative crossings are greater than the distances to alternative crossings of the other crossings proposed for closing. The lack of accessibility is compounded north of the railroad track by the lack of through streets running east and west. As pointed out at hearing, the area immediately south of the Davis Street Crossing is primarily a black neighborhood, while the area immediately north is predominantly white. The principal recreational facilities are located northwest of the Davis Street Crossing. Closing this crossing would create a physical barrier between these neighborhoods and residents and limit accessibility of the recreational facilities in the northwest area of town. The police chief testified that closure of the Davis Street Crossing would make transfers of vehicles between the southwest and northwest parts of town more difficult. The fire chief pointed out that the area along Haines Street between Davis Street and Alexander Street immediately south of the railroad track is an industrialized area containing large warehouses. In fighting a fire in this area, a crossing at each end of the area would be helpful. Three alternative routes of travel between the southwest and northwest areas are possible if the Davis Street Crossing were closed. Using the map, Exhibit 10, which lacks any scale reference, the street distances between the center of the southwest area to the hospital (H) and recreational facilities (A & P) were measured. Alternative I was via Howard Street. Alternative II was via Alsobrook Street and Alexander Street, and Alternative III was via Haines Street and Alexander Street. The following measurements were taken from the dot (.) in the intersection of Ball Street and the third street west of Franklin Street, which is unlabeled: A P H Alternative I 17.0" 17.75" 20.0" Alternative II 15.5 15.50 13.5 Alternative III 14.5 14.50 13.5 Warnell Street 12.5 13.50 16.0 The existing crossing clearly provides the shortest distance to the recreational facilities, which is a prime concern to persons in the southwest section of town. Alternative III would require traffic to detour through an industrialized area of town, and Alternatives I and II are circuitous.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency head enter a final order closing the Gordon Street and Thomas Street Crossings and leaving the Davis Street Crossing open. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronae B. Keiser, Esquire Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Paul S. Buchman, Esquire Buckman Building 212 North Collins Street Post Office Box 5 Plant City, Florida 33566 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 79-663T 79-964T PLANT CITY, 79-1910T Respondent. /
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted for a public-at-grade rail/highway crossing by new rail construction 50 feet north of Seaboard Coast Line MP SVC 855, Ft. Green Springs Road, Hardee County, Florida, Section 0600-6605, State Road 663.
Findings Of Fact After the hearing was called to order the parties called for a recess and after the recess the following stipulation was agreed to: There is a need for the subject crossing to serve the applicant's mining operation. The new rail construction is needed to move rock from the mine to applicant's other plants. It was further agreed that the applicant, C. F. Mining Corporation, will Provide the installation of side mounted flashing lights and ringing bells, and advance warning disks with flashers and pavement markings as outlined in Part 8 of the Manual of Traffic Control Devices. The applicant, Hardee County, as a part of its overall road program will police the crossing and notify the applicant's mining corporation of any defective operation in the signalization. The permit would provide a way for an industrial spurline to come off the main track of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad across Fort Green Springs Road into the C. F. Mining Corporation plant. The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad did not appear at the hearing and made no objection to the granting of the permit. The need for the crossing has been established and proper precautions for public safety are planned.
Recommendation Grant the permit as Requested. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Philip S. Bennet, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 David Ashby, Chief Engineer C. F. Mining Corporation Post Office Box 1849 Bartow, Florida 33830 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact The City is an incorporated city within the State of Florida. The subject railroad crossing on South Caledonia Street is located within the city limits of Marianna. The DOT is the agency of state government which is charged with the regulation of railroad crossings, to include the determination of whether a crossing should be opened or closed. The CSX is the railroad company which owns the railroad and railroad crossing in question and which may have to pay a portion of the costs of any improvements to the crossing. South Caledonia Street is constructed along a section line and runs due south through Marianna connecting US 90, a major east-west arterial highway, with the southern portion of Marianna and its rural environs as it becomes Highway 73 at its intersection with Jefferson Street. See Railroad's Exhibit 1. South Caledonia Street, one of ten north-south streets which crosses the railroad within the limits of Marianna, is the only one which runs straight south over the tracks to Interstate 10. South Caledonia Street is one of the four streets which provides transit over the tracks in the eastern portion of Marianna. In order from east to west, Jefferson Street, Green Street, Caledonia or South Caledonia Street (the one in question), and West Caledonia Street run north and south and provide the principal links between US 90 and South Street, in the eastern portion of the City. South Street is a major east-west street in the southern part of the City. The other east-west roads south of US 90 are Jackson Street north of the railroad; Pearl Street running west from South Caledonia between the railroad and South Street; and unpaved Franklin Street running eastward immediately north of the railroad between Caledonia and Green Streets and running westward south of the railroad between Caledonia and West Caledonia Streets. South Caledonia and West Caledonia Streets are principally residential from South Street to one block south of the railroad tracks, and commercial north of the railroad tracks. DOT's Exhibit 1 is an annotated aerial photograph of this portion of the City showing the major roads named above and the daily traffic counts on them. In recent years, the railroad crossings on West Caledonia, Green, and Jefferson Streets have been upgraded to current standards. The crossing on Caledonia Street is not improved, and the street is in very poor condition between Jackson and Pearl Streets; however, planned resurfacing of the street has been delayed while this case is litigated because upgrading the crossing will require recontouring of Caledonia Street. The poor condition of Caledonia Street has reduced traffic on the street over the railroad and has caused the existing traffic to go slower. There has never been a train-car accident at the South Caledonia Street crossing. Recontouring Caledonia Street at the railroad crossing will eliminate or reduce access to A.B. Williams Concrete and Block Company from Caledonia Street; however, there is access to the company from Green Street. The owner supports keeping the crossing open even if it restricts access to his business. Recontouring Caledonia Street would make it feasible for heavy trucks to move over the crossing on South Caledonia Street which is Highway 73 south of its intersection with Jefferson Street. Currently, the majority of the heavy truck traffic is using West Caledonia to move south and turning left on South Street to come back to Caledonia Street and out Highway 73. The intersection of West Caledonia and South Street is not well suited for such traffic. It will cost at least $250,000 to upgrade the existing crossing. It costs $612 each year to maintain the upgraded crossing. Letting the crossing remain open will have no effect on the operations of the railroad. There was no evidence presented on the costs of paving Franklin Street or the unpaved portions of the railroad right-of-way to enable traffic stopped at the railroad to move east and west north of the tracks or westward south of the tracks. There is no available route eastward south of the tracks. No evidence on the traffic count over the crossing was presented. The DOT did not take a traffic count over the crossing. If the closure of the South Caledonia Street crossing increases the traffic on Jefferson Street, currently 4,000 vehicles per day, to 5,000 vehicles per day, the Jefferson Street crossing will have to be upgraded to have bells, lights and gates. A significant increase in traffic count on Jefferson Street is possible given the current use rate of Caledonia Street north and south of the railroad, which is known. No evidence was presented on the cost of upgrading the Jefferson Street crossing. Caledonia Street is not used by emergency vehicles or school buses, and there are viable alternatives for emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks if this crossing were eliminated. However, closing this crossing will create a cul-de-sac north and south of the existing crossing on Caledonia Street because of the absence of paved east-west through streets. As indicated above, it will be very inconvenient and costly to create east-west links to eliminate these cul-de-sacs. In spite of the poor condition of the crossing and the road surface and the availability of alternatives, Caledonia Street carries more traffic than does Green Street which has had its crossing upgraded. Caledonia Street, upon which the subject crossing is located, is the only straight north-south route from US 90 to Highway 73. The preservation of this route for the future must be considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that CSX, Inc.'s Petition to close the public vehicular crossing on Caledonia Street in Marianna, Florida, be denied, and said crossing be kept open. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ben C. Watts Interim Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Michael D. Mee, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Stephen H. Shook, Esquire 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Post Office Box 793 Marianna, Florida 32446 ================================================================= AGENCY REMAND ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Petitioners, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 89-3557 CITY OF MARIANNA, Respondent. / ORDER REMANDING CAUSE FOR RECONSIDERATION The Recommended Order was issued in this cause on November 14, 1989. On December 4, 1989, the Department of Transportation filed Agency's Exceptions to Recommended Order, copy of which is attached. A review of the complete record has been made. The Department of Transportation remands the instant cause to Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, for reconsideration based on the following: The Recommended Order states in Finding of Fact Number 9 that the closure or the South Caledonia Street crossing would increase the traffic on Jefferson Street resulting in one upgrading of the Jefferson Street crossing by the addition of bells, lights and gates. The finding is not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. At the hearing below, testimony was adduced that the Jefferson Street crossing has already been upgraded with bells, lights and gates. (Transcript pages 99 - 100) Since the Hearing Officer relied, in part, upon this incorrect factual determination, the case is remanded to the Hearing Officer for reconsideration pursuant to the facts as corrected. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the instant cause is remanded, for twenty days following receipt of this Order, to Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings for reconsideration. DONE AND ORDERED, this 21st day of December, 1989. BEN G. WATTS, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen H. Shook, Esquire 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Post Office Box 793 Marianna Florida 32446 Michael D. Mee Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ================================================================= ORDER ON REMAND =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Transportation plans for Broward County made as long ago as 1965 provide for roads crossing the SCL tracks at N. W. 48th Street in Broward County and at S. W. 10th Street in Deerfield Beach. Both of these routes are now planned as principal E-W arteries providing four lanes of traffic. Rights of way for these routes both east and west of the SCL tracks have been acquired by the City of Deerfield Beach and by Broward County. Approaches for both of these arteries over the recently completed I-95 running just east of the railroad tracks have also been completed. Two crossings presently provide access from east of the tracks to the area here involved west of the tracks, one at SR 810 to the north and the other at Sample Road some 3 1/2 miles to the south. S. W. 10th Street in Deerfield Beach is just under one mile south of SR 810 also in Deerfield Beach, and N. W. 48th Street is outside the incorporated area of Deerfield Beach one mile south of S. W. 10th Street. The population of Deerfield Beach is approximately 31,000 and some 6,000 persons reside west of the SCL tracks. The largest development in Deerfield Beach west of the tracks is Century Village located south of and adjacent to SR 810. The only entry to and access from Century Village is via SR 810. In the event the crossing at SR 810 is blocked emergency access to Century Village and other areas west of the SCL tracks is via Sample Road or via the next crossing to the north in Palm Beach County some five miles north of SR 810. Fire protection for the unincorporated area of Broward County in the vicinity of N. W. 48th Street west of the SCL tracks is provided from the fire station approximately one mile east of the SCL tracks near SR 810 and US 1 in Deerfield Beach. To reach that area it is necessary to cross the tracks at SR 810, proceed west to Powerline Road, south to Sample Road, east to N. W. 9th Avenue, and north to the area. A similar route would have to be followed by other emergency vehicles either police or medical. Substantial growth of the area immediately west of the SCL tracks between SR 810 and Sample Road has occurred and developments are currently underway to provide numerous homesites, principally trailer park facilities, in this area. Sample Road has been widened to 6 lanes and is estimated to be 300 percent overcapacity if all land use plans predicated for the area are developed. Additional E-W arterial transportation routes are needed. SCL presently has a passing track or siding at the proposed S. W. 10th Street crossing. This siding is 5700 feet long and can accommodate 96 cars. Three-fourths of this track lies north of S. W. 10th Street and approximately 71 cars could be accommodated, on the portion of the siding north of S. W. 10th Street. This 5700 foot section of track is adjacent and parallel to the main track which presently carries 6 passenger and 6 freight trains per day plus approximately 2 switch trains per day. It is used to drop off cars for later pickup, for allowing north and southbound trains to pass, or for a passenger train to pass a freight train. Exhibit 16 was stipulated into evidence to show typical activity at this 5700 foot Deerfield Beach siding. During the period February 22, 1976 to April 13, 1976 the largest number of cars held on this siding at any one time was 68. Similar sidings (generally with greater capacity) exist at various places alongside SCL tracks. The cost of providing a grade separation crossing at the SCL tracks at either N. W. 48th Street or S. W. 10th Street is approximately one million dollars. While such a crossing would obviously be safer than a grade crossing, the cost to benefit ratio for the grade crossing over the grade separation crossing is 4.52 at 48th Street and more than 3 at S. W. 10th Street. The safety index for both of the proposed grade crossings with active safety warning devices is in the range of acceptability - each showing an accident probability of one every 11 years. Annual cost of the signals and warning devices to be installed on the grade crossing is some $21,000 a year while the cost of a grade separation structure is some $63,000 a year. Providing grade separation at S. W. 10th Street would necessitate the approach on the east of the track starting at about the same place the approach on the west side of I-95 starts, thereby effectively blocking any N-S access to S. W. 10th Street between I-95 and the SCL tracks. Although Exhibit 17 was not admitted into evidence one witness testified that the figures thereon, showing the cost of relocating the 5700 feet of siding at Deerfield Beach, were on the conservative side and would probably cost more. However, no evidence was presented that an at-grade crossing would render this siding useless for the purposes intended nor was any evidence offered to show that the value of this siding to SCL would be materially reduced by an at-grade crossing at S. W. 10th Street.
The Issue Whether the application of the Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC) to close the subject railway crossing should be dismissed for lack of regulatory jurisdiction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a propane gas distribution facility adjacent and parallel to the FEC railroad track within the Town of Lantana. The railroad track is between Petitioner's facility and U.S. Highway 1. To reach its property from U.S. Highway 1, Petitioner's employees must utilize a railroad crossing commonly known as Gator Culvert. The Gator Culvert is an at-grade railroad crossing. On October 13, 1948, the Town of Lantana acquired a right-of-way for road purposes at the Gator Culvert from Everett Wurtz, Petitioner's predecessor in title. On December 13, 1948, FEC and the Town of Lantana entered into a one-year renewable license to use the crossing for public road crossing purposes contingent upon the Town of Lantana assuming the cost of maintaining the crossing. On June 26, 1979, the Town of Lantana quit-claimed its interest in the right-of-way to Gator Culvert.2 On March 29, 1996, Petitioner filed suit against FEC seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding its rights to use the Gator Culvert crossing. This litigation is pending in Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. On June 28, 1996, FEC filed the subject application with Respondent for authorization to close the Gator Culvert crossing. On October 2, 1996, Petitioner amended the complaint that underpins the Circuit Court litigation to join Respondent and the Town of Lantana as defendants. By Count One of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner (referred to as Plaintiff in the Circuit Court pleadings) requests the Court to: . . . grant a declaratory judgment ruling that Plaintiff has a way of necessity purusant to F.S. Section 704.01(1) and that Defendants FEC, FDOT, and Town of Lantana may not close the crossing and thereby prevent Plaintiff's use of its way of necessity. Plaintiff further requests a trial by jury pursuant to F.S. Section 86.071. By Count Two of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner requests the Court to: . . . grant a declaratory judgment ruling that Plaintiff has a prescriptive easement and that Defendants FEC and the Town of Lantana may not close the crossing and thereby prevent Plaintiff's use of said easement. Plaintiff further requests a trial by jury pursuant to F.S. Sectioln 86.071. By Count Three of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner requests the Court to: . . . enter a temporary and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendant, FDOT from granting FEC's application to close the crossing; to restrain and enjoin Defendant FEC from ceasing to maintain and from closing the railroad crossing which provides the only access to Plaintiff's property; and to restrain and enjoin the Town of Lantana form executing the Stipulation for Approval of Closure3 or participating in any way with the attempted closure of said crossing. Count Four of the Amended Complaint pertained only to the Town of Lantana and did not involve Respondent. On August 14, 1998, Respondent published its Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application to close the subject railroad crossing in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This notice set forth Respondent's rationale for dismissing the application to close the Gator Culvert crossing that FEC had filed June 28, 1996, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The history of the crossroad, and its current condition indicate that it is not a public road. In particular, on the 26th day of June 1979, the Town of Lantana quit- claimed its interest to the right of way for public road purposes to Gator Culvert. While the prior status of the road as a public road is in doubt, this transaction effectively abandoned the right of way as a potential public roadway. Because the crossing is not a public railroad-highway grade crossing, the location is not subject to the Department's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 335.141, Florida Statutes. . . . On September 4, 1998, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with Respondent, the pleading that underpins this proceeding. On September 10, 1997, the Respondent issued a rails inventory that identified the Gator Culvert crossing as a private crossing. Scott Allbritton, Respondent's Rail Programs Engineer, reviewed and assessed the documents in the public record in processing FEC's application that were necessary and appropriate to determine whether the subject crossing was public or private, thereby determining whether Respondent lacked jurisdiction to regulate the subject crossing. His investigation revealed that the record title to the subject crossing was private. Based on Mr. Allbritton's investigation, Respondent determined that it lacked jurisdiction to regulate the subject crossing since it was not a public crossing. Respondent did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in making that determination. Respondent does not attempt to adjudicate real property disputes by its administration of the statutorily mandated railroad/vehicular traffic crossing program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that dismisses this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1999.
The Issue Granting or denial of a permit to open a public at-grade railroad crossing as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners desired to be granted a permit for the opening of a public at-grade railroad crossing in connection with the construction of a new four-lane vehicular facility. The alignment of the facility was determined after several alternate studies had been made. Its purpose is to provide a means to move traffic from the Pensacola Bay Bridge through the historical district of Pensacola and on to the west side of the City near Barrancas Avenue. To utilize this alignment, it is necessary to cross a spur track of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. Safety studies conducted on the basis of accepted safety criterion reveal that the installation and maintenance of automatically-operated cantilevered flashing lights and gates in addition to standard pavement markings, crossbucks and discs would be necessary to protect the safety of both rail and vehicular traffic. The Petitioners agreed to bear the expenses of the installation of such signalization. The permit should be granted.
Recommendation The permit shall be granted for the opening of the subject crossing conditioned upon the installation and maintenance of signalization as set forth in the facts. 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 G. S. Burleson, Sr. Asst. State Utility Engr. (RRs) Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 M. H. Smith, Esquire Attorney for Louisville-Nashville Railroad Company P. O. Box 1198 Louisville, Ky. 40201 County Attorney Escambia County County Courthouse Pensacola, Florida
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation entered herein, the following relevant facts are found. On or about December 22, 1977, the Florida East Coast Railway Company filed an application to close the railroad crossing located at 125th Avenue, Goulds (Metro Dade County) Mile Post 386 + 3300'. In the area of the proposed crossing, the railway has scheduled triweekly service including the transportation of hazardous materials and work trains which also includes extra trains as the situation dictates. 128th Avenue, in the area of the subject crossing, extends from U.S. 1 north to Southwest 232nd Street, a distance of approximately 650 feet. This is an angular crossing of railroad which tends to reduce driver visibility. Traffic counts on this roadway indicate less than 700 cars a day use the road, with the heaviest usage occurring from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 60 vehicles per minute pass over the crossing. The crossing at Southeast 232nd Street provides a right angle crossing about the same distance from the joint intersection of 128th Avenue and 232nd Street. Based on the development of 128th Avenue and a relatively short alternative route, the parties (the Railway and the County) viewed the level of safety as being increased if this crossing wore closed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the application to close the at-grade railroad crossing at 128th Avenue, Goulds, Florida (Milepost 386 + 3300') be GRANTED. RECOMMENDED this 5th 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 5th day of June, 1979.
