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.
The Issue The issue is whether the application submitted by Manatee County to the Florida Department of Transportation to open a railroad-highway grade crossing in Bradenton, Florida, meets the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 57.012(2)(a)1-6.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Manatee County, filed an application with FDOT for the opening of a public highway-rail grade crossing between railroad mile posts SW 912.27 and SW 911.87, to cross over the CSX Transportation rail line (the "Crossing"). The Crossing is proposed in connection with the expansion of a portion of 44th Avenue East, from 15th Street East extending eastward to 19th Street Court East. The extension of 44th Avenue is part of an east-west corridor within Manatee County that the County plans to extend east to U.S. 301, and is an extension of Cortez Road which terminates at the beaches of Manatee County to the west. The Department's public railroad-highway grade crossing program conducts studies on the more than 3700 public highway- rail grade crossings in Florida and creates an inventory to determine crossings that might be improved for safety reasons and for closure. Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-57.012 establishes the standards for opening and closing public railroad-highway grade crossings. The Department has endeavored to close or consolidate redundant, unsafe, and unnecessary crossings through an initiative from the Federal Railway Administration and the Federal Highway Administration to decrease the number of at- grade railroad crossings by 25 percent. The goal has not yet been met. Petitioner's policies dictate that before it agrees to a new crossing of one of its tracks, three existing crossings should be closed in connection with the opening. The County agrees that it is good policy to close as many existing crossings as possible when opening a new crossing. The closings help to decrease the potential for motor vehicle and train collisions, bicycle and train collisions, and pedestrian collisions with a train or flying debris from a train. Janice Bordelon, the Department's Rail Specialist, oversees the opening and closing of all public highway-rail grade crossings throughout the State of Florida. When she received the County's application for opening on November 21, 2002, she sent a copy of the application to Petitioner. Ms. Bordelon visited the proposed opening site and the surrounding area on at least three occasions. The Department sought input from both the County and Petitioner when considering the application for the Crossing. The land in the vicinity of the Crossing is varied to the north and is designated as light manufacturing. The area to the south is designated as warehousing and vacant industrial. The area to the east of the terminus of the Crossing is agricultural land. Much of the property in the area north and south of the Crossing is vacant, but scheduled for future use as an operations center. The railroad track in the vicinity of the Crossing is owned and operated by Petitioner. CSX Transportation, Inc., is the largest railroad in the eastern United States with approximately 22,000 route miles. Petitioner operates in 23 states, the District of Columbia, and two Canadian provinces. It is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner's operations in the vicinity of the Crossing currently involve the interchange of cars with the Seminole Gulf Railroad, just south of the Crossing. The purpose of the interchange is to exchange cars between two railroad companies. Current operations involve approximately eight train movements per week, consisting of 20 rail cars in each movement. Trains using this track travel at a speed of 20 miles per hour currently. The speed could change with the approval of the Crossing. The potential exits for Petitioner to increase its utilization of the track in the area of the Crossing. This would occur as a result of increased utilization of rail as a result of growth in both Manatee County and Florida. Based upon the character of the area near the Crossing, the possibility exists for location of a manufacturing facility or distribution center that could result in increased rail traffic. The Department reviewed and analyzed the safety of the proposed 44th Avenue Crossing, including the volume of rail and vehicle traffic, the proximity of existing crossings, the angle of proposed crossing, and surrounding land uses. The Department proposed solutions for mitigation of the identified safety issues through traffic synchronization and other design features such as curbs and signalization. The Intent to Permit issued by the Department recommends that the County pursue the consolidation of unnecessary rail crossings, especially those with light traffic and within a quarter mile of an existing crossing. The County's expert identified two such crossings for potential closure. Mr. G. Rex Nichelson, an expert in railroad crossing openings and closings, testified that the Crossing would ultimately be designed by the joint efforts of Petitioner and the County, resulting in the safest feasible design for the Crossing. He noted that there would be no possibility of a hump at the Crossing and that the design would utilize either an attenuator known as Kwik Curb or a nine-inch, non-mountable median to minimize the opportunity for drivers to circumvent the crossing gates and place themselves in harm's way. Petitioner would also be involved in the final design of the Crossing. The design features would enhance the safety of the Crossing. A flyover crossing, one that would divert traffic from direct contact with the rails at the Crossing, is prohibitively expensive and not justified in this case. The tracks are visible upon approach of the Crossing. The Department considered pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the Crossing, and determined it would not be significant. Trespass can occur in the area of railroad tracks, regardless of whether the Crossing were opened. The Department and the County collaborated to identify possible closures to offset the Crossing, and several were identified as a result. The Department determined the Crossing is necessary to alleviate existing vehicular traffic and serve planned industrial land uses in the area of the Crossing. The Crossing will draw a considerable amount of traffic from the existing roadway system onto a new roadway better designed to accommodate the traffic volume. Currently, traffic in the area of the proposed crossing is heavy, especially at peak times. Alternative routes for east-west vehicular traffic were examined and considered, but the 44th Avenue extension appears to be the safest, most direct way for the County to complete an east-west corridor in the area of the Crossing. The County considered alternative alignments for the Crossing, but none of these were preferable to the one selected due to sharp, unsafe crossing angles and increased right-of-way costs. The Crossing will affect rail operations and expenses due to increased liability and some maintenance costs. The County would also bear increased liability and would bear most, if not all, of the costs of maintenance, operation, and construction. The effect on rail operations would occur primarily during the construction phase of the Crossing. The effects on operations of the rail would be limited since no switching movements of trains in the area of the Crossing will occur, and based upon the fact that only a single track exists in the area of the Crossing. The parties did not attempt to quantify the extent of the effect on Petitioner's operations other than to anecdotally state that delays could occur, affecting crew overtime and the scheduling of cars, which could result in missed connections. Safety hazards exist associated with a crossing during switching operations. When a train is stopped during switching operations, some motorists become impatient and attempt to pull around the train. Some pedestrians even attempt to crawl over or under the train. The locomotive and train engineer could be 20 to 30-car lengths away when this occurs, and not see the pedestrians or motorists when restarting the train. However, current rail switching north and south of the Crossing would not block the Crossing, and no evidence was produced to demonstrate that Petitioner planned to establish additional switching movements in the area. Vehicles carrying hazardous materials or wastes present a concern since they could cause harm if the chemicals or waste were released. Additionally, these vehicles are required to stop at railroad crossings, which could lead to rear-end collisions. School buses approaching the railway must also stop before crossing, which can also lead to rear-end collisions by motorists. The Department considered the design of the grade crossing and road approaches. The Department considered the angle of crossing and made recommendations to minimize any dangers associated with the Crossing. If necessary, modifications would be made to the crossing gates in order to sufficiently protect motorist, bicyclists and pedestrians from crossing the railway when a train approaches. The plans submitted by the County might require modification during the design phase of the project. The project meets or exceeds the Department's engineering and design criteria. The angle of skew of the Crossing is reasonable. The grade in the area of the Crossing is flat and the Crossing itself will be flat.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the requested permit for opening a public railroad-highway grade crossing at 44th Avenue East, between mile posts SW 912.27 and SW 911.87, in Manatee County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 16th day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce R. Conroy, Esquire Chief, Administrative Law & Real Property Division Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0810 Rodney C. Wade, Esquire Robert Michael Eschenfelder, Esquire Manatee County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 1000 Bradenton, Florida 34206-1000 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Denver Stutler, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at grade rail-highway crossing by new roadway construction at Everglades Boulevard-State Road 710- Section 91000-6604, Okeechobee County Parcel 1 (right of way XSO-8).
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail-highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Okeechobee County through its agent Moseley Collins, P. E., County Engineer. The crossing location is southeast of the city of Okeechobee, Florida. The local popular name of the street is Everglades Boulevard. The proposed crossing is across the tracks of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad at Seaboard Coastline milepost 911.93. The crossing would serve a growing subdivision approximately three (3) miles wide and nine (9) miles long, an area in which approximately 3,000 people live. There is one entrance to the subdivision across Highway 441 South. There is a second grade crossing signalized with crossbucks known as the Hazellieff Road crossing. This crossing does not serve the subject subdivision inasmuch as the road dead-ends after crossing the railroad. There are no current plans to buy up the right of way and extend the road at the Hazellieff crossing. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad would prefer that the Applicant extend the road to serve the subject subdivision. The Hazellieff crossing is approximately one-half mile from the proposed crossing, but the Applicant states that the crossing serves only a few families and the Applicant does not own the right of way across the muck-pitted area and has no plans to extend the road that crosses the railroad at Hazellieff crossing. There is an estimated average daily traffic count of 2,000 cars per day which would use the proposed crossing. There are six passenger train movements every twenty-four hours on the railroad at those crossings. There are six through freights every twenty-four hours and four local freights every twenty- four hours, plus additional extra trains as needed. The speeds range up to 79 miles per hour for passenger trains and 60 miles per hour for freight trains. The passenger trans are the AMTRAK trains. A need has been established for another opening across the railroad because of the long and circuitous route that must be traveled to enter the subdivision. In the event of a storm, there is an additional hazard to the road because of two bridges that must be crossed. The proposed opening would decrease greatly the mileage to be traveled to fire or hospital. The parties agreed that the proper signalization for the proposed crossing would be automatic crossing gates, flashing lights and ringing bells. The Applicant contends that an opening is needed to serve the growing subdivision known as Treasure Island; that the existing crossing is insufficient as far as the safety of the community is concerned and requires a much longer way to be traveled by the residents of the subdivision. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad contends that the existing public opening should be used and right of way bought by the county so that there would not be an additional crossing of the tracks. AMTRAK contends that there should be no new openings across the tracks where the passenger trains attain high speeds unless there is a great need and a study made to see if there cannot be a closing to balance the opening across the tracks. Florida Department of Transportation contends that a need has been established for the crossing and that the parties have agreed that lights, bells and gates are the needed signalization. The Hearing Officer further finds: That a need has been established by the Applicant. That proper signalization includes flashing lights, ringing bells and gates.
Recommendation Grant permit, providing there is a clearance from the Safety Engineer as to the visibility problem pointed out by the Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Daniel H. Brunner, Esquire 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Southwest Washington, D. C. 20024 W. L. Hendry, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1337 Okeechobee, Florida Jack J. Vereen, Jr. Assistant Division Engineer 2206 N. W. 7th Avenue Miami, Florida 33127 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On March 26, 1979, the Department filed an application for the closing of two railroad grade crossings known as Orange Street at Milepost A-825.48 and Murphy Street at Milepost A-830.30. Both crossings are located within the corporate limits of Davenport, Florida. The track which intersects the crossings services four passenger and ten freight-trains each day. The speed limit over the crossings is restricted by city ordinance to fifty miles per hour. Neither of the crossings is equipped with active grade crossing traffic control devices. Prior to recommending the closing of a crossing, a Railroad Committee within the Department meets and reviews petitions for closure. The committees primary concern in deciding whether to close a crossing is public safety and a secondary concern is public necessity. Additionally, convenience of the local population Is considered. The Orange Street crossing is utilized primarily by passenger cars and small trucks. In the twenty-four hour period in which traffic was counted, 696 vehicles used this crossing. The profile of the Orange Street crossing is very poor because the road is approximately seven feet higher than the railroad tracks, thus requiring a motorist to stop on a steep downhill grade when approaching the crossing. Cross-bucks are the only signalization at the crossing. The Department has proposed two alternate routes, Magnolia and Bay Streets, for the traffic presently utilizing the Orange Street crossing. Magnolia Street has recently been renovated and is scheduled for installation of flashing lights and gates in October, 1980. Because of the renovation and installation of lights, Magnolia can accommodate the expected added traffic. Bay Street currently has flashing lights and can accommodate the anticipated added traffic since it had a traffic count of 547 vehicles in a twenty-four hour period. There would be no substantive difference in adverse travel time for a motorist using either Magnolia or Bay Streets as opposed to Orange. Both crossings are safer than Orange Street. The Department does not propose to close sidewalks which cross the tracks at Orange Street and are utilized primarily by residents of a nearby retirement home. In regard to the other crossing which the Department seeks to close, Murphy Street, two alternate crossings are suggested, Magnolia Street and Bargain Barn Road. During a twenty-four hour period in which traffic was counted, 256 vehicles used the Murphy Street crossing. This crossing is inherently dangerous for long trucks or tractor-trailer vehicles due to its abrupt vertical profile or "hump." The Murphy Street crossing ends in a "T" intersection and its closing would not hinder police or emergency services. The Magnolia Street crossing can accommodate the increased traffic which will result from the closing of Murphy Street. This crossing is almost level and is approximately 1,600 feet from Murphy Street crossing. Bargain Barn Road or State Road 547, is another alternate crossing. This crossing is safer than Murphy Street in that lights and gates were installed in March, 1980. It is 1,200-1,300 feet or a quarter of a mile away from the proposed closed crossing and would not cause adverse travel for local motorists presently using Murphy Street. The current traffic count at Bargain Barn is approximately 732 cars per day which would increase to approximately 860 if Murphy Street were closed.
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted for an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Live Oak, Perry and South Georgia Railway Company Mile Post 1688 feet east of Mile Post 40.
Findings Of Fact Proper notice was given the parties and the hearing was delayed for thirty (30) minutes after time of notice in the event that the Respondent desired to make an appearance but was unavoidably detained. State Road 20 was relocated so that the subject crossing is necessary to the straightening and the realignment of the existing road. The average daily traffic is estimated to be 3,600 for the year 1976 and to be 4,800 in ten (10) years. The railroad is a single line trackage and is shown by the inventory to carry four (4) trains per day at 10 m.p.h. The tracks serve a local paper mill in Foley, Florida. An agreement has been worked out between the Department of Transportation and the Respondent railroad. The agreement provides for the protection and signalization at the location of the subject crossing and provides for the funding of the project. The prior or present crossing in this vicinity on State Road 20 will be open and in operation approximately 600 feet from the proposed crossing. Both crossings will have flashing lights and the existing crossing will carry primarily local traffic coming out of the county grade road. The new crossing will bear most of the traffic. The Respondent railroad is in agreement with the opening of the crossing; the Department of Transportation is in agreement that the additional crossing be permitted; the parties agree that the signalization shall be cantilevered flashing lights.
Recommendation Grant the permit to open the crossing. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. R. A. Kelso, Chief Engineer Design & Construction Southern Railway Company (Live Oak, Perry and South Georgia Railway Company) 99 Spring Street, South West Atlanta, Georgia 30303
The Issue Whether a permit should be issued to close an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 123 + 3,478 feet and Eleanor Street in New Smryna Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Eleanor Street railroad crossing is within the city limits of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, and serves a residential neighborhood. There are a total of 16 freight train movements north and south in a 24-hour period. There are normally two local freight trains each day. In August of 1966 there was a railroad train/automobile accident in which there were two fatalities and one injury. There is a small manufacturing plant on the west side of Eleanor Avenue which uses subject crossing. The factory has approximately 15 trucks. Motor vehicular count shows that there are between 600 and 900 crossings per day at this railroad crossing. Eleanor Street is a two- way street and the train is a single track. The street is relatively straight on the east side of the track and there is a reverse curve on the west side of the track. The crossing is protected by cross bows and stop signs. To the south of Eleanor Street, several hundred feet, is Wayne Street crossing, which is a two-lane street protected with flashing lights and gates at the railroad crossing. The Wayne Street crossing is heavily traveled with a traffic count of some 2,407 crossings per day. Although there are several crossings in close proximity, ditches and lack of through streets make these crossings inconvenient to those presently using subject crossing. The petitioner desires the crossing be closed, but if it is not closed that flashing bells, lights and gates be installed. The Respondent City does not want the crossing to be closed and states that it has allocated 10 percent of the required funds for installation of proper signalization. The Respondent Department of Transportation does not recommend that the crossing be closed and recommends that the crossing be signalized by a Type I signalization which is roadside mounted flashing lights with bells. Federal funds can he used for this project.
Recommendation Grant the petition to close unless installation of a Type I denomination of signalization is begun within sixty (60) days from date of Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Charles B. Evans, Esquire General Counsel Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Charles A. Hall, Esquire City Attorney Bank of New Smyrna Building New Smyrna Beach, Florida
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the request for a permit to close the railroad crossing located at East Dade Avenue in the City of Bushnell, Florida, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Bushnell received notice of DOT's intended agency action in this matter in the form of a copy of DOT's, INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT, dated May 23, 1990. The permit would authorize the closing of the East Dade Avenue railroad crossing located in Bushnell. Bushnell filed a petition requesting formal proceedings on June 19, 1990. Bushnell has a population of 1,945, according to unofficial 1990 census figures. Population has increased almost 100 percent from the last census count which revealed the population to be 983. Within the City, there is a total cf six street crossings on CSX's railroad. The railroad traverses the center of the City with one main line and one storage line which permits trains traveling in opposite directions to pass each other. All the crossings fall within .76 of a mile and are located on traffic routes intersecting with the City's main thoroughfares; Main street running parallel to the west side of the railroad and Market street running parallel to the railroad's east side. In addition to the crossing located on East Dade Avenue, the other five crossings in the City are located on East Seminole Avenue, Central Avenue, Bushnell Plaza, Noble Avenue and Belt Avenue. While the East Dade Avenue crossing is un-signalized, the other five crossings are protected by flashing lights, bells and gates. Factors usually considered in determining need for a railroad crossing are locations of schools, hospita1s, fire stations and police stations. Also considered are volume and type of railroad and vehicular traffic; availability of alternate crossings; whether alternate crossings require use of excessively circuitous routes; whether the crossing presents a restrictive view to crossing traffic; the length of time that the crossing is blocked to crossing traffic by train activity; motor vehicular and train speed limits in the area; and the number of accidents occurring at the crossing. There are no hospital facilities within the City. The elementary school is located south of East Dade Avenue near Noble Avenue and Bushnell Plaza. The high school is located north of Belt Avenue and west of the railroad outside of the city. The East Dade Avenue crossing is not included in any school bus route for either school. The City Hall and Police station are located adjacent to Noble Avenue. This location is south of East Dade Avenue and east of the railroad. The East Dade Avenue crossing is not a regularly used route for fire and police vehicles, although it does serve as a main alternate route for those vehicles. The major reason for usage of the East Dade Avenue crossing as an alternate route for fire and police vehicles is the lack of traffic signalization at the intersection of East Dade Avenue with Main and Market Streets. Since Bushnell has no preemptive circuitry for existing traffic signals at the other nearby signalized alternative routes, closing the East Dade Avenue crossing would constitute an excessive restriction to emergency vehicles in the form of inordinate delay in their response time while waiting for traffic lights at more heavily travelled alternative intersections. Such delay would subtract from the limited time available to emergency personnel, commonly known as the "golden hour", to render aid to individuals requiring immediate attention. The Dade Avenue crossing is 580.8 feet, 686.4 feet and 1108.8 feet from Belt Avenue, Noble Avenue and Bushnell Plaza, respectively. In the event that the East Dade Avenue crossing is closed, it is estimated that motorists desiring access to East Dade Avenue from Market Avenue will only need to travel an additional few seconds and use Belt Avenue to then access East Dade Avenue. DOT conducted traffic counts on East Dade Avenue on February 5, 1990 through February 19, 1990. The results show that an average of 367 westbound vehicles use the crossing daily. A total of 178 eastbound vehicles utilize the crossing on a daily basis. An average of 16 trains use the tracks daily, passing through the City at approximately 35 miles per hour. The storage track, located on the west side of the main line, presents an obstacle to observation by an eastbound motorist on East Dade Avenue if a train is on the storage track. The lack of railroad signalization at the Dade Avenue intersection with Main and Market Streets presents a potential for automobiles, waiting at the stop sign on East Dade Avenue for approaching vehicles on Main and Market Streets to pass, to become trapped on the railroad tracks. Further, East Dade Avenue does not provide a direct route to any of the City's points of interest or public facilities. DOT quantifies the relative safety railroad crossings through the assignment of a safety index number to each crossing in the state. In a comparison of railroad crossings, a higher safety index number for one crossing implies a higher level of safety at that crossing. The determination of the safety index number for a crossing includes consideration of traffic volume at the crossing. East Dade Avenue has the highest safety index of any of the six railroad crossings in Bushnell. As determined by DOT traffic counts conducted in February of 1990, the crossing also has the lowest average daily traffic use of any of the six crossings, a determinative factor in accident occurrence. Belt Avenue and Noble Avenue, the two crossings immediately adjacent to the north and the south of the East Dade Avenue crossing have average daily traffic counts of 2,715 and 6,080, respectively. In view of the low traffic count at the East Dade Avenue crossing, closure of that crossing may increase Belt Avenue crossing traffic from 2,715 to 3,023 and Noble Avenue traffic from 6,080 to 6,388. The minor increase in traffic at the Belt Avenue and Noble Avenue crossings in the event of closure of the East Dade Avenue crossing would have no appreciable effect in the safety index presently accorded those two crossings. The Belt Avenue crossing safety index could be expected to decline from 65 to 64.4 and the Noble Avenue index could be expected to decline from 59.8 to 59.6. The CSX railroad contemplates the expenditure of $1,277 a year to maintain the East Dade Avenue crossing. This cost figure includes only the cost of surface maintenance and does not include any cost of maintenance of any future signalization that might be installed at the crossing in lieu of the crossing's closure. Funding has been reserved to signalize the East Dade Avenue crossing in the event the crossing is not closed. The CSX railroad also contemplates that closing the East Dade Avenue crossing will increase the likelihood that trains will be permitted to travel through the City at speeds closer to the line speeds (some as high as 79 miles per hour) realized outside the City, resulting in more economical operation of train engines and thereby yielding some savings to the railroad. No authorization regarding such increased speed limits has been given by DOT or Bushnell to the railroad at the present time. Bushnell's comprehensive plan assumes that the East Dade Avenue crossing will remain open as part of the total traffic circulation element of that plan. The City's comprehensive plan was not reviewed by DOT's diagnostic team in the course of their research regarding whether to recommend closure of she East Dade Avenue crossing, nor did the team hold any consultation with City officials regarding the plan. Closure of the East Dade Avenue crossing would adversely affect existing and proposed local businesses on East Dade Avenue near the intersection with Main and Market Streets because such action would prohibit direct access to Main Street. DOT has established a policy manual, agency procedures applicable to any implementation of the agency's decisions to close railroad crossings. Pertinent procedures in section 1.4.9 of that manual restate rule closure criteria contained in the agency's promulgated administrative rules and emphasizes that no crossing should be closed that serves as a main or alternative route for emergency vehicles. Implementation of any proposed closure of a crossing is to be accomplished in accordance with section 2.3.4 of the manual which also states that a crossing should not be closed if it serves as a main or alternative route for emergency vehicles. This section further prescribes that consultations should be had with city, county and state planning agencies to determine closure compatibility with established growth plans.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the requested permit for closure of the East Dade Avenue crossing. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statut.es, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioners' Proposed Findings. (findings submitted by DOT have been adopted by CSX.) Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 3.-5. Adopted by reference. Adopted in substance. Adopted by reference. 8.-17. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. The weight of the evidence supports a finding that 16 trains use the tracks daily. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Rejected, hypothetical with regard to subject crossing. Adopted. Rejected in part in view of the finding that lack of railroad signalization permits automobiles to be on the tracks at the crossing. Adopted as to the hazardous condition potential for cars to be trapped on the tracks. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 24.-26.Adopted. Rejected, speculative. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected to extent that this proposed finding speaks to the agency's adherence to its procedures manual. The evidence establishes the agency's dereliction in this regard. 30.-32.Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Adopted by reference. 3.-6. Rejected, unnecessary. 7. Included. 8.-1S. Rejected, recitation of law and preliminary matters. 16.-25.Adopted in substance. Hypothetical. Adopted. 28.-30.Rejected, recitation agency policy manual. 31. Adopted in substance. 32.-36.Adopted by reference. 37.-41.Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen H. Shook, Esq. CSX Transportation Inc. 500 Water Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Charles C. Gardner, Esq. Department Of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Bryan F. Eubanks, Esq. P.O. Box 128 Bushnell, FL 33513 General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted for an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Post AX-973, 480 feet south of said mile post.
Findings Of Fact There is being constructed in Lee County, Florida, a roadway known as the Six Mile Parkway and also known as the Ortiz Loop Road. This roadway is a four lane divided highway with two 24 foot sections separated by a 40 foot median strip constituted of grass. The speed limit at the proposed railroad crossing is 55 mph. The average daily traffic is estimated to be 6,000 cars by the year 1978 and 18,000 cars by the year 1985. The railroad is a single tract facility, which carries three trains per week and six trips. These trains are freight trains with a speed limit of 35 mph at the proposed crossing. The trains average 30 cars per train, and primarily haul limerock and "stump wood". If a local mine, which is in operation, should increase production, the average number of trips per week could increase to 10 trains. Trains that travel on this track at this time, travel between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., on a daily basis, but are not more particularly scheduled. It is contemplated that the cost of the installation of the railroad crossing with safety devices and the maintenance of this railroad crossing is to be paid for by Lee County, Florida. Lee County, through their expert witness, John Walter Ebner, P.E., testified that they would propose a type II, grade crossing with four lanes, the same width as the highway, with the identical pavement and a grass median of similar width as the highway. The safety device proposed by the applicant, Lee County, Florida, is a train activated flashing lights and bells device with cantilevered signalization. The Applicant does not feel control gates would be necessary at the present, considering the traffic volume of automobiles and trains. The Department of Transportation and the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad agree with the proposal of the Applicant, with the exception of feeling that automatic train gates should be installed from the inception of the construction of the railroad crossing. The Applicant is additionally concerned about the economics of the installation of a train activated device with automatic train gates. The concern is that the cost will be an additional $20,000 above their recommended safety device. The official statement of agreement to the construction of the at-grade crossing is found in the Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida which was offered as an exhibit by the Applicant in the course of the hearing. That exhibit is Applicant's Exhibit #1. There was no offering of testimony or further statement by members of the general public or other parties.
Recommendation It is recommended that the permit be granted, to open the subject crossing, utilizing the safety equipment proposed by the Applicant, with the addition of the installation of automatic gates. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operation Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James T. Humphrey, Esquire Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Marvin R. Herring Train Master Seaboard Coastline Railroad 1102 New Tampa Highway Lakeland, Florida 33801
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing was entered into evidence and said notice was amended to reflect that the distance of an existing crossing north of the proposed crossing was 2,208' + north rather than 1,500' + north. The application was also changed to reflect that the proposed roadway was to extend the limits of a right of way to 120' instead of 100'. The change would place the mile post at a slightly different location. Upon examination of the area and taking testimony from the three attorneys involved in this hearing, it is the findings of this Hearing Officer that the change in location and the change in the proposed roadway is not of sufficient consequence that the hearing should have been postponed and re- noticed. Inasmuch as the parties directly involved were present, the owners of the railroad were represented, the owners of the Petitioner corporation were represented, there were representatives from the County and from the Florida Department of Transportation. A re-notice with the minor changes in location and in the width of the right of way would have been sent to the same representatives. The Notice of Hearing met the requirements of notice of public hearing. Petitioner Suntree Development Corporation is proposing to construct a connector road between Wickham Road and U.S. 1 approximately 2,208' south of an existing two-lane signalized (warning bells, lights, and gates) road crossing on Pineda Avenue in south Brevard County, Florida. The proposed road is to be four-laned with 120 foot right of way including a 20 foot medium strip. The road would be an access between U.S. 1 and the Suntree Community, a new community on approximately 2,800 acres of land which is predicted to have approximately 35,000 to 40,000 people after total development which is estimated to be completed within a 15 year period. The road would be a limited access with acceleration and deacceleration lines on U.S. 1 with an estimated total anticipated average daily traffic of from 23,000 to 60,000 trips per day. The proposed crossing involves a Type IV cantilevered signalization with bells, flashing lights and gates to be activated by trains. Cost of signalization and maintenance is to be borne by the Suntree Development Corporation. Petitioner is the primary owner of all the lands involved, but does not own all of the right of way needed to construct the crossing. Building is presently limited to a country club, sewage treatment plants, about a mile of roadway and two single family homes under construction and plans for the construction of some forty homes within the next few months. The proposed crossing was approved by the Brevard County Commission with the understanding that the crossing at Pineda Avenue would not be closed. The Florida East Coast Railway track in this area is a single track with 18 through freight trains a day which travel about 60 m.p.h. at the proposed crossing location. Two local freights move at unscheduled times across the railroad tracks. The tracks in the vicinity of the proposed crossing is nearly straight. The Florida East Coast Railway Company owns the right of way over the tracks and opposes the opening of another crossing in such close proximity to the crossing at Pineda Avenue, at this time. Storage capacity or storage area is the area in which cars can stand while awaiting clearance to proceed. The proposed road will contain 1,800' of storage area with 850' on the Wickham Road side and 950' on the U.S. 1 side. Using the average daily traffic figure when the community is developed, as calculated by Petitioner, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 3.28 minutes. Using the average daily traffic figures when the community is developed, as calculated by the Florida Department of Transportation, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 1.27 minutes. The Florida Department of Transportation recommends that an overpass be constructed rather than the at-grade crossing. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Pineda Avenue crossing can serve the vehicular traffic demand at present; Petitioner's plans for development, if realized, will demand another railroad cross- ing to serve the community; The proposed at-grade crossing is in such close proximity to U.S. 1 that it would be hazardous to vehicular traffic on U.S. 1 and the proposed Suntree entry road when the community is developed.
