Findings Of Fact The railroad crossing which is the subject of this proceeding is crossing number 272859-B, in the City of Florida City, Florida. Its location at N.W. 14th Street is approximately 700 feet north of an existing crossing located at Lucy Street, and roughly 1900 feet south of a present crossing located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway. The Railway's rationale for closing the N.W. 14th Street crossing is that these other two nearby crossings offer practical alternate routes to the N.W. 14th Street crossing, and can provide public access and emergency services to the area. The City's opposition is based on its contention that closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing would affect emergency access to the area. The principal justification for the closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing is its proximity to the other crossings located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway and Lucy Street, and the resulting improvement in safety for vehicular traffic and railroad equipment. Removal of the subject crossing would eliminate vehicular accidents on the tracks, and eliminate upkeep and maintenance expenses caused by frequent vandalism at the N.W 14th Street crossing location. In addition, closure would eliminate the need to sound the train whistle at the N.W. 14th Street crossing which is located near a residential housing area. The Railway receives an average of two calls per week to report incidents of vandalism in the area of the N.W. 14th street crossing. This number of calls is above average compared to other crossings in the area. Moreover, closure of the subject crossing would permit the relocation of the signal devices now in use there to one of forty-four other crossings in or near Florida City. The traffic count taken in the vicinity of N.W. 14th Street, which is a local service road providing access to a single neighborhood, showed that about 600 vehicles per day use the crossing. Traffic counts taken at Lucy Street, a through street which provides service beyond any specific residential area, resulted in approximately 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day. The Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway crossings have sufficient capability to handle all traffic diverted to them if the 14th Street crossing should be closed. The N.W. 14th Street crossing also allows outside traffic to enter the residential area, contrary to good urban planning. By removal of the crossing, such through traffic would be eliminated. The alternate crossings at Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis parkway provide reasonable alternate routes, and removal of the subject crossing will not unduly inhibit access by emergency vehicles into the affected area. Although 75 percent of the calls the Florida City police receive originate from Cuban village, a heavily populated area surrounding N.W. 14th Street, if the subject crossing were closed, Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway could be used to respond to emergency police calls in the Cuban Village. Therefore, alternate routes are available for emergency access to the affected area. In addition, from a pedestrian safety standpoint, there is sufficient space along Lucy Street to allow pedestrians to walk there without being affected by vehicular traffic.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida East Coast Railway Company to close the at-grade railroad crossing at N.W. 14th Street in Florida City, Florida, be granted. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 15 day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15 day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Evans, Esquire One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Thomas Tomassi, Esquire 137 N.W. 10th Street Homestead, Florida 33030 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation should issue a permit for the installation of a public at-grade railroad crossing in the vicinity of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad track, 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 on the alignment of Baya Avenue, East of Lake City, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony of witnesses for the petitioner and the arguments of counsel and those witnesses appearing for the Department of Transportation on the issues and considering the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, is duly authorized to establish and maintain a primary system of highways within the boundaries of the State of Florida. The Petitioner has heretofore filed an application with the appropriate division of the Department of Transportation of the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 330.21 Florida Statutes, for Permission to establish a graded railroad crossing for Baya Avenue (U.S. 90) within the city limits of Lake City, Florida on the state primary highway system proposed to intersect the Respondent Railroad's tracks approximately 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad. The Respondent Railroad Company did not appear although the record shows that Notice of Hearing was properly given and that plans of the project and proposed signalization were duly sent by letter dated October 8, 1975. There was uncontroverted testimony by Mr. Terry Crews, Assistant District Utilities Engineer for the Petitioner that Mr. R. A. Kelso, Chief Engineer, Design and Construction, Southern Railway System had discussed a portion of the project by telephone with Mr. Crews and no objections were raised. No letters of objection were filed. The Petitioner is in the process of constructing a new four-lane vehicular thoroughfare. This construction is necessary in the rerouting of vehicular traffic through Lake City, Florida (U.S. 90). As a part of this construction it is necessary to cross the railroad and State Road 100 which lie adjacent to each other. It will be a four-lane divided highway with a painted median, with curbs and gutters in the vicinity of the crossing. At the time of construction, the railroad will consist of single-line trackage that carries two (2) trains per day at speeds of approximately 20 miles per hour. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 vehicles per day will use this facility by 1984. Studies conducted by Department of Transportation personnel reveal that the crossing should be signalized with cantilevered flashing lights, ringing bells and pavement markings in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This signalization should be interconnected with vehicle traffic signalization located at State Road 100 to control vehicular traffic at the highway crossing as well as the railroad crossing. The applicant agrees to install and maintain such signalization. The Hearing officer further finds: The proposed crossing is necessary and desirable; The signalization is adequate as planned, to protect the public; The Petitioner needs the crossing; The Respondent has not opposed the crossing; The Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, will Install and maintain the crossing.
The Issue Whether permits for two public at-grade railroad crossings should be granted.
Findings Of Fact By application the Agrico Chemical Company seeks permits to open two public at-grade railroad crossings by constructing a spur track between the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and Agrico Railroad beginning 1,868 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Mile Post SVC 851 at Agrock, Florida. The application involves opening two public at-grade rail highway crossings by new rail line construction. The local popular name of the road is Fort Green Road and Payne Creek Road. Two tracks were constructed less than two years ago so that the Seaboard Coastline Railroad could come off their main line and come into Agrico and pick up loaded or unloaded cars for transportation to the south, north and west. Agrico now desires to construct a track which more directly ties into what they term their Payne Creek trackage to the southeast. The new crossings would come straight across the Seaboard Coastline mainline into the Fort Green trackage. Agrico would have to spend less time on Seaboard Coastline trackage and the plan is to erect electric signal crossings whereas there are no electric signal crossings in the area at the present time. Such signalization would render the crossings less hazardous. The Petitioner Agrico will pay for the signalization at both crossings. Signalization consists of bells and signal lights. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad will maintain the crossings and signalization at the expense of the Petitioner Agrico. There are twelve trains per day. The Respondent Seaboard Coastline Railroad was not represented at the hearing, but a letter was introduced stating that "Seaboard Coastline will indicate no objections to these crossings when the appropriate public hearing is scheduled". The Respondent Department of Transportation reviewed the subject application and expressed the desire of the district railroad committee that Agrico Chemical Company pay for the installation of flashing lights and that the installation would conform to the manual on uniform traffic control devices pertaining to signalized railroad crossings. It also stated that in the interest of good safety practices, no buildings should be constructed or plantings made that would prevent good sight distance at the crossing. Additionally, the Respondent Department of Transportation suggested that the railroad crossings be maintained by "other than the Department of Transportation". The Hearing Officer further finds: The application for new railroad trackage is in the interest of the Petitioner Agrico Chemical Company and is in the interest of the public using the two railroad crossings. Signalization as planned will increase the safety of vehicular traffic.
Findings Of Fact Florida West Coast Railroad (FWCR) applied to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to close an "at-grade" railroad crossing at Northwest 5th Street in the City of Newberry, Florida. By date of September 13, 1993, FDOT issued its Intent to Issue Permit (approval of FWCR's closing application) to all interested parties showing a scheduled on-site conference at the crossing location on May 6, 1993. FDOT's intent to approve FWCR's application was not altered subsequent to the opportunity for input by representatives of the City of Newberry at the May 6, 1993 conference and at a public hearing. The City had at least one public official or an official's designee present at both of the foregoing events. The City timely filed its request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. dated October 6, 1994. A CSX railroad track runs roughly northwest to southeast, through the City of Newberry. It effectively bisects the city, west and east. The FWCR railroad track runs roughly northeast to southwest and intersects the CSX track in a rough "X" shape . There are six crossings on the FWCR track and five on the CSX track, all within the city limits. Northwest 5th Street, Newberry, consists of an unimproved dirt right- of-way. The average vehicular traffic count is eleven vehicles per day. The crossing FWCR seeks to close is officially numbered D.O.T./A.A.R. 625898V, also known simply as "898." By the parties' stipulation, it is undisputed that Crossing 898 is within the city limits at Northwest 5th Street in the City of Newberry, Alachua County. It is also stipulated and undisputed that two freight trains traverse the crossing daily at a speed of approximately ten miles per hour; that the crossing is not used by any school buses; and that the only warning devices are "crossbucks." James Sewell, Fire Chief for the City of Newberry, is the coordinator for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) within the city. His department provides basic life support (BLS) in conjunction with advanced life support (ALS) provided by the County of Alachua to city residents under an inter-local agreement. The city's emergency medical equipment and fire truck are kept at the City Fire Department on North Main Street, just north of its intersection with Northwest 3rd Avenue. Northwest 3rd Avenue runs directly west from its intersection with North Main Street, eventually intersecting with Northwest 4th, 5th and 6th Streets. At the intersection of Northwest 3rd Avenue and Northwest 4th Street is a fire hydrant. At the intersection of Northwest 3rd Avenue and Northwest 5th Street is the 898 crossing. Chief Sewell and other city witnesses expressed concern that the closing of Crossing 898 would impede rapid response by ambulances, fire, or other emergency vehicles and would lessen accessibility to the service area denominated "the northwest quadrant," which is becoming more residential. The northwest quadrant is located north of the FWCR track and its crossings 898 and 899 which intersect it. FDOT and FWCR advocated that the city fire and emergency medical vehicles could respond from the Fire Department and go south on Main Street to Central Avenue (SR 26) then west on Central Avenue to Northwest 6th Street and north on Northwest 6th Street across Crossing 899 to reach the northwest quadrant. At the present time they can do that, and they also can turn one block earlier and take NW 5th Street north from Central and across Crossing 898, something they could not do if Crossing 898 is closed. The county vehicles could traverse SR 26 which is also Central Avenue, to Northwest 6th Street and use Crossing 899 to reach the northwest quadrant without having to digress to the Fire Department. At the present time, they can also take Northwest 5th Street to Crossing 898. Although Chief Sewell acknowledged that there was a fairly even distribution of fire hydrants throughout the city, he also testified that Crossing 898 encompasses a primary route for city fire trucks responding to a structural fire because of the hydrant located at 4th Street and 3rd Avenue. He has often had to use Crossing 898 and the hydrant at 4th Street and 3rd Avenue for fire responses and command procedures associated with those fires. As recently as last year, the city experienced a major brush fire in the northwest quadrant with high gusting winds which would have been difficult to contain without utilizing that hydrant. If he had not been able to use Crossing 898, he would have had to go to Northwest 6th Street Crossing No. 899 or 6th Avenue Crossing 622495 a/k/a "495." The 6th Avenue Crossing 495 is north of the FWCR track and Crossings 898 and 899 and intersects the CSX railroad track. Chief Sewell testified that although he could have still strung water lines that far, he would also have had to send his fire truck back to that hydrant, away from the scene of the fire, institute different command procedures which might be less effective, and increase his fire vehicle response time in that area from thirty seconds to roughly two minutes. According to Chief Sewell, Crossing 898 encompasses a primary route for city EMS vehicles and it constitutes the quickest, shortest route to an emergency in the northwest quadrant, especially for a heart attack or stroke victim who should receive care within four minutes of a "911" call. After six to eight minutes, an untreated heart attack or stroke victim can suffer irreversible brain damage. If someone in the northwest quadrant calls "911", the city's EMS vehicle can now respond via 6th Avenue Crossing 495, Northwest 5th Street Crossing 898, or Northwest 6th Street Crossing 899. It was not demonstrated how response via Crossing 495 could be very effective or speedy, however, or how the city emergency vehicles would reach Crossing 495, given its location on the north side of the FWCR tracks unless they used some other crossing too. If 6th Avenue Crossing 495 were blocked, vehicles could use 1st or 2nd Avenues to get to Crossing 898 or 899 now or to get to Crossing 899 if 898 is closed. Crossing 898 at Northwest 5th Street is a primary route, particularly if other crossings are blocked. Blockage of several crossings at once is common when the CSX coal train, which is over a mile in length, stops for ten to fifteen minutes at a time. That train comes through Newberry twice a day and can come through more often. It is possible for Crossings 496 at 2d Avenue, 497 at 1st Avenue, and 498 at Central Avenue on the CSX track to be simultaneously blocked by this train, which effectively blocks both Crossings 898 (Northwest 5th Street) and 899 (Northwest 6th Street) as well. The Mayor has had to break the train to allow emergency vehicles to pass on occasion. There have been no vehicular-train accidents at Northwest 5th Street (898), Northwest 6th Street (899) or Northwest 6th Avenue (495) since 1979. There is only a block between Northwest 5th and 6th Streets in the city. Northwest 6th Street is paved and its crossing 899 is comparatively flat. Crossing 899 also has advanced signage designed to prevent car-train accidents, which Crossing 898 does not. Crossing 898 at Northwest 5th Street is currently "signed" only with crossbucks. Northwest 5th Street is unpaved and Crossing 898 is elevated significantly, both of which conditions may cause vehicular traffic to voluntarily slow to accommodate the jackknifing effect of topping the track. Modern cars may "bottom out" on it. Similar problems may exist for fire trucks and long emergency vehicles. According to Chief Sewell, there is a "standard" that permits emergency vehicles to approach railroad crossings with care, subject to stopping for the protection of firefighters or patients. This means that paved unelevated roads, such as Northwest 6th Street do not necessarily make for quicker response times than dirt roads such as Northwest 5th Street. The Northwest 6th Street crossing (899) is located 465 feet west of the Northwest 5th Street crossing (898) which FWCR seeks to close pursuant to this proceeding. Northwest 6th Street is connected to Northwest 5th Street by roadways on both sides of the railroad. Using Northwest 6th Street Crossing 899 or Northwest 6th Avenue Crossing 495 would increase travel time for the average motorist by approximately 30 seconds even when no crossing is impeded by a train. Trains on the track would be a further (longer time) impediment. Clyde Forbes, on behalf of FWCR, testified that on one occasion a FWCR train derailed and simultaneously cut off Crossing 898 at 5th Street and Crossing 495 at 6th Avenue, but Crossing 899 at 6th Street was still available for entry to the northwest quadrant of the City. Apparently referring to this same incident, Mayor Warmack stated that the derailment occurred between 5th and 6th Streets, closing both Crossings 898 and 899. Although the city did no maintenance with regard to Crossing 898 itself in the eleven years prior to the closing application, Buddy Jeffcoat, City Commissioner in charge of streets and roads, testified that the city recently paid for the area to be surveyed and the road shoulders cleared of underbrush. Residents were required to clear their adjoining property, and the City Commission established a goal of paving Fifth Street and the other two unpaved streets in Newberry within the next two years. Existing funds for such paving have been tentatively allocated. However, this plan for city development may be considered speculative, since the city witnesses testified in terms of city paving and maintenance of the crossing being conditioned upon FWCR agreeing to upgrade the crossing signage. Since crossing signage is partly an FDOT function, there are no guarantees at the present time that the city will pave Northwest 5th Street within two years. No Local Comprehensive Plan was admitted in evidence. Mayor Freddie Warmack testified that the City has allocated funds through S.H.I.P. to develop low-cost housing in the northwest quadrant. Two single-family residences have been built in the northwest quadrant in the last three months. This represents a significant increase in building in the area, considering the size of the City of Newberry. Northwest 5th Street runs into a city-owned park. The park draws children, but there was no expert testimony as to whether or not pedestrian and bike traffic to the park is rendered safer or less safe due to Crossing 898. There was no evidence presented to support a finding that FWCR intends to abandon its track. FDOT's Procedure Manual states that, "The best grade crossing is a closed one. Closing a grade crossing is always the preferred alternative". FDOT personnel echoed this policy in testimony to the effect that the way to eliminate crossing accidents is to eliminate crossings, period. Prior to formulating its notice of intent, FDOT personnel admittedly did not review the City of Newberry's Local Comprehensive Plan, make a study of the City's prospective growth viz a viz Crossing 898, study any potential future changes in railroad traffic or determine specifically whether or not FWCR intended to utilize or abandon the material section of track. However, evidence on these issues was presented at formal hearing as described supra.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the requested permit for closure of D.O.T./A.A.R. 625898V railroad crossing in Newberry, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 93-6023 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). FDOT's PFOF: Accepted Rejected as a proposed fact because it represents a proposed conclusion of law. See, Conclusions of Law. 3-9 Accepted as modified 10 Accepted that this was testified but not dispositive in light of other evidence. See Findings of Fact 16 and 19. 11-12 Accepted but modified for clarity. Rejected in light of other competent evidence. See Finding of Fact 24. Accepted Rejected as a proposed finding of fact because it represents a proposed conclusion of law. See, the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as stated because it is misleading to the evidence as a whole and does not contain a transcript or evidentiary reference. See, Findings of Fact 16, 19 and 22. Rejected as stated because it is misleading to the evidence as a whole and does not contain a transcript or evidentiary reference. See, Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence and because it does not contain a transcript or evidentiary reference. Rejected as a proposed finding of fact because it represents a proposed conclusion of law. See, the Conclusions of Law. City of Newberry's PFOF: Except for mere legal argument, accepted within the findings of fact or covered under "Preliminary Statement." Rejected as subordinate, as mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony, and/or as a proposed conclusion of law. See, Finding of Fact 29. Rejected as a proposed finding of fact because it represents a proposed conclusion of law; See Conclusions of Law. 4-5 Accepted, but unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized. Sentence 1: Rejected in part as not supported by the record as a whole and in part as mere legal argument or subordinate; See, Findings of Fact 3-4. Sentence 2: Accepted. Sentence 3: Accepted. Sentence 4: Accepted. Sentence 5: Accepted as modified to more closely conform to the record as a whole. Sentence 6: Accepted as modified to more closely conform to the record as a whole. Accepted, except that unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized. Testimony that could not be reconciled is covered in Finding of Fact 23. Accepted, except that unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized. Rejected as a proposed finding of fact because it represents a proposed conclusion of law; See Conclusions of Law. Rejected in part and accepted in part as supported in the record. See, all Findings of Fact but particularly Findings of Fact 24-29. Unnecessary. FWCR's PFOF: None filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 S. Scott Walker, Esquire WATSON FOLDS Post Office Box 1070 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 David H. Anderson, Esquire 47 Sheple Lane Groton, Massachusetts 01450
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.
Findings Of Fact Sebastian has applied for a Department permit to open a public at-grade crossing of the Railway's right-of-way near Mile Post 218 + 146'. The proposed Stratton Avenue crossing of the railroad track is part of a planned eastward extension of Barber Street and Stratton Avenue. If completed, this extension will provide a new arterial road connecting the southeast interior section of Sebastian with U.S. Highway 1. (Stip.; P-2 (d); R-1) The proposed Stratton Avenue crossing will have an 80 foot right-of-way and eventually accommodate four lanes. During the permitting process, its alignment has been modified to provide for greater vehicular sight distance. Although the proposed Stratton Avenue extension does not cross the tracks at right angles, which would provide maximum sighting of oncoming trains, it is likely that further improvements in alignment can be made. Nevertheless, the alignment, as proposed, complies with standard engineering criteria contained in the "Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction, and Maintenance for Streets and Highways." (P-2 (d); Testimony of Adair) The alignment of the proposed crossing would allow for a 45 mile-per- hour speed limit. Twenty-four trains currently pass this section of track each day. The train speed limit is 65 miles-per-hour. (R-2) The proposed crossing will be provided with cross-bucks, gates, and flashers. The parties have stipulated that Sebastian will install, at its own expense, active grade crossing traffic control devices meeting the criteria of Rule 14-46.03(3), Florida Administrative Code. (Stipulation) Applications to open public at-grade crossings are measured by three criteria: convenience, safety of rail and vehicle traffic, and necessity. Existing routes must first be utilized when practicable. Damage to a railway's operation and safety must be considered. And when estimated traffic approaches 30,000 vehicles a day on main line tracks, the applicant must perform a cost- benefit analysis to determine if grade separation is warranted. See, Section 14-46.03(2)(a), Fla. Admin. Code. II. CRITERION 1: CONVENIENCE The proposed Stratton Avenue crossing would be convenient and provide several advantages to residents of Sebastian. (A map showing the location of the proposed crossing is attached for easy reference.) Improved Access to Hurricane Shelter. Sebastian Elementary School has recently been built at the intersection of Schumann Drive and south Barber Street. (Stratton Avenue will connect Barber Street with U.S. 1.) This school serves as a hurricane or civil defense fallout shelter for Sebastian and northern Indian River County. The proposed Stratton Avenue extension would provide an additional access route and facilitate evacuation of residents from U.S. 1 to the shelter. (TR-53-55) Improved Access to Sebastian Elementary School. The new school serves students located throughout the northern part of Indian River County. Currently, 42 school buses transport students to and from the school using Powerline Road (a dirt road unsatisfactory for bus traffic) and Schumann Drive (a road which traverses a residential neighborhood). A majority of these buses would use the proposed Stratton Avenue extension since it would be paved and would avoid built-up residential neighborhoods. The latter advantage may be short-lived, however, because Stratton Avenue will traverse a residential area which will eventually be developed. The Stratton Avenue extension would also benefit parents who bus their children to school because it would provide a new access road from U.S. 1. The School Board of Indian River County supports the Stratton Avenue extension and crossing because of the increased access provided to school buses and parents. (Testimony of Solin, Tipton, R-1, P-4) Improved Fire and Police Access to the Elementary School and South Sebastian. The proposed Stratton Avenue extension, with crossing, will enhance fire, police, and emergency service access to the elementary school and residential areas of south Sebastian. Currently, fire and police vehicles reach the south and southwestern portions of the city by proceeding south one and three quarters miles on Schumann Drive (which is one and three quarters miles north of Stratton Avenue), then south on Barber Avenue to the residential areas. The Stratton Avenue extension would provide a shorter and more direct route so emergency vehicles could respond more quickly. (Testimony of Solin) Improved Access to U.S. 1 from South Sebastian Residential Areas. Residents living in south and southwest Sebastian would have improved access to U.S. 1 and coastal areas if the extension, with crossing, is built. Residents traveling east on Barber Street would have a shorter and mode direct route to U.S. 1 and the coast. Two county road improvements planned for completion during the next two years will, however, improve access to and from Sebastian Elementary School and U.S. 1. Powerline Road will be widened and paved; Schumann Drive will be extended to Wobaso Road, as shown on the attached map. 2/ III. CRITERION 2: SAFETY The design and alignment of the proposed crossing meets or exceeds all safety and engineering standards of the Department, and no party asserts otherwise. The design will allow clear, though not optimum, visibility by both vehicle and train traffic. (Testimony of Murray, Adair, Tipton; P-2 (d), R-1) The proposed crossing will, however, provide a new point for potential collision between trains and motor vehicles, with resulting property damage, injury, and loss of life. Currently, 24 of the Railway's trains pass the crossing site each day, with a permissible speed of 65 miles-per-hour. The proposed crossing will increase the potential for collision between motor vehicles and trains. (Testimony of Tipton; P-16) The frequency and seriousness of grade-crossing accidents are cause for concern. In 1978, there were 1,122 grade-crossing fatalities, nationwide. Between 1979 and 1983, there were 177 grade crossing accidents involving the Railway's trains; 18 people were killed and 66 injured. These accidents occurred despite the fact that the Railway's public crossings are equipped with gates, bells, and lights. (Testimony of Tipton) It is generally recognized that, assuming equal volumes of vehicular traffic, the potential for accidents is directly related to the number of crossings. (Testimony of Tipton; R-1) IV. CRITERION 3: NECESSITY Although completion of the proposed Stratton Avenue extension, with crossing, would benefit Sebastian residents, there is no genuine need or necessity for the extension. Existing roads and crossings, with minor improvements (many of which are already planned or underway) can safely and adequately accommodate existing vehicular traffic and traffic demands projected for the next five years. (Testimony of Tipton; R-1) The Railway contracted for an in-depth traffic engineering study to determine whether the proposed at-grade crossing is needed for transportation purposes. That study, which is credible and accepted as persuasive, concludes that the existing roads and crossings serving the area north and south of Stratton Avenue can, with minor improvements, safely and adequately accommodate traffic demands reasonably projected for the next five years. (R-1) In conducting the study, William E. Tipton, an expert traffic transportation engineer, collected and analyzed four kinds of data: 1) Population growth projected in the area of the proposed crossing within the next five years; 2) Traffic characteristics at intersections and crossings near the proposed crossing; 3) Daily traffic counts at those intersections; and 4) Roadway improvements planned for the near future. (R-1, Testimony of Tipton) Existing traffic on the nearby intersections was counted and adjusted to derive peak season and peak hour conditions. Applying standard capacity measurements, the study indicates that, currently, 52 percent of the existing capacity of State Road 510 is used during peak conditions; 20 percent of the capacity of 87th Street is used; and 26 percent of Vickers Road. It is apparent that these roads currently have excess capacity and are underutilized. As Mr. Tipton stated: "I could have laid down in the road for a while while we were out there counting traffic, because the traffic was that low." (TR-119; Testimony of Tipton; R-1) The impacts of traffic generated by additional residential development projects planned for completion during the next five years was then analyzed. Traffic from these particular developments, assumed to be 100 percent occupied, was then assigned to nearby roads and a critical movement analysis was performed for each intersection. Level of Service "D" is the design standard which is normally deemed acceptable for peak hour, peak season traffic conditions. With the following minor improvements, the nearby intersections can provide "D" service or better during the next five years, without construction of the Stratton Avenue extension and crossing: 1) installing a signal at the intersection of U. S. 1 and 510, which is already underway; 2) adding a right turn lane on the south leg of U.S. 1 at this same intersection; 3) installing a traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. 1 and Schumann Drive to allow a left turn-out; 4) adding a left turn lane on the south leg of State Road 5A at the intersection of 510 and 5A. (TR 122-123) The cost of the proposed Stratton Avenue extension will exceed, many times over, the cost of these relatively minor intersection improvements. (Testimony of Tipton; R-1) Although the south Sebastian area was extensively platted for residential development during the 1960s, it remains sparsely populated today. It is projected fifty percent "build-out" will occur in 15 years, and full "build-out" in 30 years. At some point in the future the proposed Stratton Avenue extension will, undoubtedly, be needed but it is reasonably certain that it will not be needed for transportation purposes for at least five years. (Testimony of Tipton) V. NO DAMAGE TO RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND NO NEED FOR A GRADE SEPARATION COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS There is no evidence that the proposed extension and crossing will damage or interfere with operations of the Railway. Should the Stratton Avenue extension and crossing be built, it is estimated that traffic use will ultimately approach 31,830 vehicles, but this will not occur within 20 years, the period considered to be a reasonable planning cycle for road improvements. No cost-benefit analysis was performed by Sebastian (to determine whether a grade separation is required) because the traffic projections did not approach 30,000 within a 20-year period. Further, there is no evidence that either the Department or the Railway ever requested that such an analysis be done. The parties' prehearing stipulation fails to indicate that the requirement of a cost-benefit analysis is at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Sebastian's application for a permit to open the Stratton Avenue at- grade public railroad crossing be denied, without prejudice to its right to reapply in the future should circumstances warrant it. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 23rd day of November, 1983.
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
Findings Of Fact Polk County proposes to relocate Hunt Brothers Road where it crosses the Seaboard Coastline Railroad near Highland Park some 350 feet to the north and to remove the existing roadway approach to the crossing. Hunt Brothers Road is a two lane highway 24 feet wide. The existing road has no signalling devices or warning lights installed other than a railroad crossing sign. Polk County proposes to put back-to-back flashing lights on each side of the road at the relocated crossing. However, the county has no objection to installing whatever signal devices are required at this crossing. The approach to the proposed crossing provides greater safety than exists at the old crossing. The new road exits a curve to the right 250 feet from the tracks. No other obstruction exists at this crossing, however, a second parallel track exists on which cars could be parked within 200 feet of the road. From the evidence adduced this appears to be a relatively short siding and not a track on which trains move. One northbound and one southbound train moves over this track daily. No evidence was presented that stanchions for flashing lights could not be located within 12 feet of the edge of the roadway. There is no record of any accident at the existing crossing and the safety factor of the crossing was not computed and presented at the hearing. The additional initial cost of installing cantilevered flashing lights and gates over the cost of installing roadside flashing lights is some $50,000. No cost benefit ratio or study showing the benefits to be obtained with use of the more expensive system was presented. The principal reason for the District Safety Engineer's recommendation for cantilevered flashing lights and gates was that as the driver of a car negotiated the curve approaching the track his eyes would of necessity be focused on the center line of the road and would better see lights located over the center of the road. He acknowledged however that if lights were on both sides of the road the field of vision of a driver looking straight ahead as he exited the curve would include a light on the left-hand side of the road before one in the middle of the road.
The Issue The granting or denial of permits to open and to close public at-grade railroad crossings as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, 1973.
Findings Of Fact The petitioner is in the process of constructing a major vehicular traffic facility linking U.S. Highways 17 and 92 with Interstate Highway 4. All administrative and legal prerequisites for the project have been accomplished and sanctioned by court order. The project, as designed, requires a realignment of Greenwood Road. It also requires the closing of an existing artery in this portion of Collier County and at present it dead-ends at Goodlette Road. The county's long-range road plans provide for expanding State Road 951A to the west to join U.S. 41, or to connect with a road in the city that would join U.S. 41. Pending the acquisition by the city of the right to cross the railroad track, the county has not obtained any rights-of-way that will be required to connect the proposed Coastland Boulevard with SR 951A from its intersection with Goodlette Road. In Exhibit 2 the connection of these two arteries is indicated in the yellow area on the map, which shows Coastland Boulevard crossing Goodlette Road, and extending in an inverted curve northward to join SR 951A. In the absence of the actual acquisition of the rights-of-way, however, the portion indicated on Exhibit 2 east of Goodlette Road is a general proposal rather than a specific indication of where the road will be placed. The proposed rail grade crossing insofar as the city is concerned and without considering any further action by the county, would result in a road that would cross the railroad track and dead-end on a north-south artery road. Some 700 feet to the north is SR 951A, which presently dead-ends at the eastern right-of-way of Goodlette Road. Some 200 feet to the north of SR 951A and leading to the westward of Goodlette Road is 22nd Avenue North, which also dead- ends at Goodlette Road. Without further action by Collier County to extend the proposed Coastland Boulevard across Goodlette Road there would be three T- intersections on Goodlette Road within a span of less than 1,000 feet. From the foregoing it is concluded that there is an urgent need for the proposed new boulevard and a grade crossing over the Seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks. It is further concluded, however, that to allow this crossing without extending the proposed Coastland Boulevard to the east of Goodlette Road would not be in the best interest of the safety of vehicular traffic in Use area concerned. It is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the petition of City of Naples, Florida to install a railroad grade crossing in the vicinity of the proposed Coastland Boulevard and 603 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company mile post AX999 in Naples, Florida be approved subject to Collier County taking official action to extend Coastland Boulevard eastward of Goodlette Road. It is further RECOMMENDED that final approval of this grade crossing be withheld until such time as the City of Naples and Collier County submit to the Department evidence that the necessary rights-of-way have been acquired and money has been appropriated for the construction of that portion of Coastland Boulevard east of Goodlette Road. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of September, 1975 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julian Clarkson, Esquire Philip Bennett, Esquire General Counsel's Office Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
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
