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 Petitioner, the Deltona Corporation, is managing a development known as Rotonda owned by Cape Cave Corporation and desires to open two at-grade railroad crossings from this development to SR 771, the major road providing access to and from the development. Both of these crossings were previously approved by the railroad and the county agreed to maintain the crossings once installed. However Petitioner desires to relocate the crossing previously existing at Rotonda Boulevard 50 feet to the north and change Ingram Boulevard crossing to a four lane road. The proposed crossing at Ingram Boulevard is some 2300 feet north of Rotonda Boulevard. The hurricane evacuation route for the people in the area to SR 771 is over Rotonda Boulevard. Most of the lots in the Rotonda development have been sold and the developer is not in the process of installing the streets. It is Petitioner's position that the additional crossing at Ingram Boulevard is needed to provide egress for the Rotonda residents when the other crossings congested with hurricane evacuation traffic. Neither of the roads involved approach the railroad at a right angle. Proceeding northeast Rotonda Boulevard parallels the railroad until just before reaching the point of crossing when Rotonda Boulevard turns 60 degrees to 70 degrees to the right. The track is then crossed at an angle of some 30 degrees from normal. The approach at Ingram Boulevard turns about 30 degrees to the right when proceeding eastward and the road then crosses the track nearly normal thereto. Additionally Antilla Drive joins Rotonda Boulevard at the point Rotonda turns right to cross the track thus creating a Y intersection immediately before the crossing. The view of the crossing at Rotonda Boulevard East is obstructed to some extent by vegetation and the angle of the crossing further impedes the safety features of this crossing. The approach to the Ingram boulevard crossing from SR 771 is nearly normal and from the development the angle is about 30 degrees. Accordingly the Ingram crossing, assuring proper signaling devices are installed, would provide the safer crossing. The SAL track here involved is infrequently used, with only one or two trains per day and the train speed is restricted to slow. Respondent, in regulating the crossings, prefers to have adjacent crossings of a track separated by considerably greater distances than one-half mile.
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing and new rail line construction on Jones Road and Georgia Southern and Florida Railroad - MP 243.
Findings Of Fact The following stipulation was agreed upon and written by the parties: "1. As to the necessity of the opening of the said crossing. Westlake is a develop- ment where in excess of $25,000,000 has been spent in a project of the Georgia Southern & Florida Railway, of which $15,000,000 has al- ready been spent to date. Such project has been reviewed and approved by the Jacksonville Planning Board and the public need has been recognized and determined for this residential and light industrial development. As to the facility. The track will be an extension of existing lead track that was originally considered and approved by the De- partment of Transportation crossing Garden Street and is an extension south to the Appli- cant's property lime. Said extension is to serve the need of said development and must be extended across Jones Road to facilitate the services of light industrial purposes. Said track is an extension being two miles in length. Safety and signalization. To meet the required safety standards of the State of Florida, Applicant agrees to install cantalevered flashing lights and bells, side mounted, which are referred to as Type 2 installation. Applicant also agrees to provide sign and pavement markings as specified in MUTCD. The parties agree that said construction of signal device will provide the required public safety. The present anticipated need of such crossing of the Applicant are for one train per day rail traffic in and out. Jones Road is a two-lane rural road with posted speed limits of 45 miles an hour. As to the construction. Said plans have been presented and approved by the City Engineer, Jacksonville, Florida. Applicant agrees to pay for the installation and maintenance of signalization. Approximately $35,000 for the installation and $3,000 per year maintenance. Applicant agrees that it is a quasi-public corporation existing in perpetuity. Applicant agrees to abide by the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation and laws of the State of Florida, as well as the ordinance code of the City of Jacksonville." The facts as outlined in the stipulation of the parties are the Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Issue the required permit. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Julie H. Kuntz, Esquire American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Transportation ("Department") may issue a permit authorizing CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSXT") to close public-railroad highway- grade crossing 627445-K (the "Crossing") located at SE 222nd Street in Hawthorne, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department has authority over public railroad- highway grade crossings in Florida, including the authority to issue permits for the opening and closing of crossings. § 335.141(1)(a), Fla. Stat.2/ The Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") has an "Action Plan" to improve grade-crossing safety. A key element of that plan is the consolidation of redundant and unnecessary highway-rail grade crossings. The FRA's goal is for each state to reduce railroad crossings by 25 percent. The Department's criteria for closing railroad-highway grade crossings are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-57.012(2)(c), as follows: Closure of Public Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings. In considering an application to close a public railroad-highway grade crossing, the following criteria will apply: Safety. Necessity for rail and vehicle traffic. Alternate routes. Effect on rail operations and expenses. Excessive restriction to emergency type vehicles resulting from closure. Design of the grade crossing and road approaches. Presence of multiple tracks and their effect upon railroad and highway operations. On June 30, 2010, CSXT submitted a Railroad Grade Crossing Application seeking closure of the Crossing, based on the redundancy of the Crossing in relation to other available crossings. The Crossing is located at SE 222nd Street in Hawthorne. 222nd Street is a two-lane urban local road running north and south, beginning at 69th Avenue and ending at 75th Avenue. The street crosses CSXT railroad tracks between SE 73rd Avenue and 74th Lane in a north-south direction. The surrounding area consists of residences, a veterinary hospital, a city-owned park, and some small commercial uses. The railroad right-of-way at the Crossing is operated by CSXT. The Crossing includes a timber and asphalt surface over a single mainline track. It has no sidewalk and is designed for automobile use only. The rail speed limit at the Crossing is 20 to 25 miles per hour. Petitioner, Dr. Shane Henry, is the owner of the veterinary hospital near the Crossing and was the only testifying witness familiar with the actual movement of the trains at the Crossing. Dr. Henry credibly testified that their actual speed at the Crossing is no greater than 5 miles per hour. Two local trains pass through the Crossing three times per week. A Department traffic study showed that 53 vehicles crossed the track at the Crossing in a 24-hour weekday period. No school buses use the Crossing. The posted speed limit for vehicles at the Crossing is 10 miles per hour. There are no active warning signals such as flashing lights or crossbars at the Crossing. Reflective crossbuck signs have been installed at the Crossing to alert drivers that they are approaching a railroad track. Train crews are required to sound their horns in warning as they approach the Crossing. Approximately 264 feet to the east of the Crossing is another railroad crossing at U.S. 301, which is the main north- south thoroughfare in Hawthorne. U.S. 301 is a four-lane highway that is heavily traveled in comparison to SE 222nd Street. Approximately 475 feet to the west of the Crossing is another railroad crossing at SE 221st Street. Southeast 221st Street is a two-lane north-south connector for Hawthorne's business district. The railroad crossings at U.S. 301 and SE 221st Street have active signals with crossbars lowering and lights flashing when trains pass. The Department sent a diagnostic team to examine and evaluate the Crossing. The team recommended that the Crossing be closed as redundant to the safer crossings nearby. The Department presented the proposed closure to the Hawthorne City Commission at a public meeting on July 20, 2010. Dr. Henry attended the meeting and voiced his opposition to the closure. Dr. Henry's Lake Area Animal Hospital is located at the corner of U.S. 301 and 74th Lane. The animal hospital is open on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. A small city park is located across the Crossing from the animal hospital. Dr. Henry testified that he tells his clients to walk their pets to the park to calm them down. Clients needing stool or urine samples are also advised to walk their pets to the park while waiting. Dr. Henry testified that closing the Crossing would limit his clients' access to the park and force them onto U.S. 301, which is heavily traveled by vehicles. However, there are alternative places to walk animals near the hospital that would not force the clients directly onto U.S. 301, including a side yard of the hospital premises. Dr. Henry may consider these less calming for the animals than the park, but they do not appear to endanger the animals. In deciding whether to authorize the closure of the Crossing, the Department considered the seven criteria listed in rule 14-57.012(2)(c): safety; necessity for rail and vehicle traffic; alternate routes; effect on rail operations and expenses; excessive restrictions to emergency vehicles resulting from closure; design of the grade crossing and road approaches; and presence of multiple tracks and their effect on railroad and highway operations. These criteria were considered in light of the overall objective "to reduce the accident/incident frequency and severity at public railroad-highway grade crossings, and improve rail and motor vehicle operating efficiency." Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-57.012(1). As to the "safety" criterion, the Department's first consideration was the potential for collisions of vehicles and trains at the Crossing. The Department made the following credible findings concerning safety at the Crossing: The SE 222nd Street crossing is signalized with crossbucks only (i.e., passive signalization) without any active warning devices (i.e., lights and gates). Cautious drivers would stop at the subject crossing and look both ways along the track to determine whether a train is approaching and to estimate its speed. In the event that following vehicles do not anticipate such stops and/or fail to maintain safe-stopping distance, collisions may result. In addition, the presence of the crossing itself may cause non-train collisions. Exemplified by a driver stopping suddenly to avoid collision with an oncoming train, the driver may lose control of the vehicle and collide with a roadside object. These types of potential collisions would be avoided with the elimination of the crossing. Currently there are no recorded accidents at the crossing; however, the opportunity exists for collisions, train and non-train, when a crossing exists. Although accident history is taken into account, it is not the sole determining factor, in as much as the prospective crossing closure has relatively low vehicular use and, thereby, fewer accidents. An accident does not have to occur before considering a crossing closure. Janice Bordelon, a Department rail specialist, was a member of the Department's diagnostic team. At the final hearing, Ms. Bordelon testified that the timber and asphalt surface of the Crossing was in poor condition and could cause a driver to focus his attention on finding a smooth pathway rather than looking for oncoming trains. As to the "necessity for rail and vehicle traffic" and "alternate route" criteria, the Department concluded that the Crossing is not a necessity for rail or vehicular traffic because of the ready availability of alternate routes. The Department determined that there were alternate routes and parallel roads on each side of the Crossing, and residents, schools, emergency response, and businesses would not be negatively affected by the closure of the Crossing. Closure of the Crossing to vehicular traffic would have no effect on rail traffic. Florida guidelines for public crossing closures provide that closure should be considered where there are fewer than 3,000 vehicles per day using the crossing and where there are crossings located closer than one-half mile apart. As noted above, only 53 vehicles were recorded at the Crossing over a 24- hour weekday period. The Department determined that rerouting such a low volume of vehicles to other roads would not have a significant impact on the level of service of the alternate routes. The Department specifically considered Dr. Henry's objections and concluded as follows: A veterinarian clinic at the corner of 74th Lane and N. Main Street (US 301/SR 200) has stated that closure would require their clients to be rerouted onto N. Main Street (US 301/SR 200), a more hazardous route. However, a timing study of the location shows that clients visiting the clinic have a safe alternate by traveling one block south on SE 222nd Street to 75th Avenue and proceeding north on SE 221st Street or south on Johnson Street. This route takes less than two minutes and does not require traveling onto N. Main Street (US 301/SR 200). Ms. Bordelon testified that she performed the referenced timing study and confirmed the findings thereof. She stated that alternative routes are simple to find in Hawthorne because the city's streets are laid out in grid fashion. There are parallel roads on either side of the Crossing, and the closing of the Crossing would not leave any property landlocked. Ms. Bordelon's timing study established that there are at least two alternate routes for vehicles, each of which would add a driving time of less than two minutes. As noted above, the 221st Street crossing is about 475 feet from the Crossing and the U.S. 301 crossing is about 264 feet from the Crossing, providing nearby alternatives to the Crossing after its closure. As to the "effect on rail operations and expenses" criterion, the Department made the following findings: The elimination of the rail crossing at SE 222nd Street would benefit the Railroad and the City in the reduction of liability and maintenance expenses. The removal of the crossing would eliminate the cost of upgrading and maintaining the crossing. The Department's Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 130 funds are annually distributed and utilized on crossings within each District based on a diagnostic team's evaluation of the prioritized crossings' need for safety enhancement.3 Hawthorne has been the recipient of a major safety project with the construction of the $42 million grade separation project at SR 20/Hawthorne Road and US 301/SR 200. The Department has also scheduled a $375,000 crossing surface project at US 301/SR 200 to be installed in the coming fiscal year. The US DOT Action Plan specifically states: when improving one crossing (i.e., grade separation or crossing improvements) consider the elimination of the adjacent crossing. The closure of SE 222nd Street reflects the guidance of the Federal Railroad Administration's crossing consolidation plan. The elimination of the SE 222nd Street crossing would positively impact rail operations in the reduction of horn blowing and the elimination of trains blocking the roadway. The elimination of both of these factors at this site would reduce complaints received from motorists and nearby homeowners. Cliff Stayton, director of community affairs and safety for CSX, testified that at any public crossing, federal regulations require the operating railroad to sound the horn at least 15 seconds but no more than 20 seconds before the train enters the crossing.4/ Mr. Stayton pointed out that here there are three crossings within a half-mile of each other, each of which requires the sounding of the horn. Eliminating the Crossing would reduce the nuisance factor of the horn to the nearby residents. As to the "excessive restrictions to emergency vehicles resulting from closure" criterion, the Department found that the closure of the Crossing would have no effect on emergency vehicle access. Alachua County provides EMS service to Hawthorne, and the vehicles come from a county fire and rescue station eight miles west on S.R. 20. The vehicles could access any residence on SE 222nd Street by taking S.R. 20 to U.S. 301. The hospitals serving Hawthorne are all located in the Gainesville area. Ms. Bordelon testified that emergency vehicles use main arterial roads such as U.S. 301 rather than urban local roads such as SE 222nd Street, and the closure of the Crossing would have no adverse impact to the provision of emergency services on either side of the Crossing. As to the "design of the grade crossing and road approaches" criterion, the Department found that the Crossing's timber and asphalt surface provides a rough transition from the road surface, with noticeable dipping and bouncing. The approaches to the Crossing are cracked and patched, adding to the rough transition. As noted above, the uneven surface may cause a driver to pay more attention to choosing a smooth path over the Crossing rather than determining whether a train is approaching. Though there are no recorded accidents at the Crossing, its design and state of repair lead to the finding that closing the Crossing would offer at least some incremental safety enhancement to motorists. As to the "presence of multiple tracks and their effect on railroad and highway operations" criterion, Ms. Bordelon testified that it did not apply in this case because the Crossing has only a single track. In addition to his argument that his practice will be inconvenienced by having access to the park cut off, Dr. Henry alleged that disabled persons may have difficulty accessing his clinic via wheelchair if they are forced to cross at U.S. 301 rather than at the Crossing. Dr. Henry alleges that this constitutes a failure to offer a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. No direct evidence was presented to support this speculative claim. In summary, the Department's findings leading to the recommendation that the Crossing be closed are supported by competent substantial evidence. Mr. Henry's concerns regarding the impact of closure on his business were sincere and well expressed at the hearing, but were insufficient to rebut the Department's prima facie showing that the criteria set forth in rule 14-57.012(2)(c) have been satisfied and the Crossing should be closed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the requested permit for closure of public railroad-highway grade crossing 627445-K located at SE 222nd Street in Hawthorne, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2012.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the at- grade railroad crossing over the CSX railroad tracks located at Mottie Road in Gibsonton should be closed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, CSX Transportation, Inc. operated a railroad running generally north and south through the city of Gibsonton, located in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for the licensing and permitting of at-grade railroad crossings located on the public roads of this state. The Petitioner, Concerned Citizens of Gibsonton Area, Inc. is a private citizens group whose purpose is the betterment of living conditions in the community. The at-grade crossing in issue is located where Mottie Road crosses the CSX tracks in Gibsonton. On January 26, 1996, CSX submitted an application to the Department to close the Mottie Road crossing. That crossing was one of three crossings proposed for closing. Pursuant to the requirements of the Department, a public hearing was conducted on the closings at which the railroad presented its proposal and affected citizens were given an opportunity to submit matters in opposition to the closings. On April 25, 1996, after a review of the matters submitted by the applicant and by the public at the hearing held for that purpose, the Department issued the instant Intent to Issue permit. There is only one track at the Mottie Road crossing. Mottie Road is paved and is approximately twenty feet wide at the crossing. It supports an average daily traffic of approximately 434 vehicles per day. It is, primarily, a rather short residential street though it does carry some commercial traffic. It runs east and west. One end of Mottie Road ends where it intersects with Roosevelt Road on the east and the other ends at US Highway 41 just west of the crossing. The crossing has no active signal, but motorists are advised of the crossing by cross-bucks at each side. Nundy Avenue is the east-west roadway just north of Mottie Road. Whereas Mottie Road runs for only several blocks, Nundy Avenue runs from Lula Street, a north-south street west of US Highway 41, east to its intersection with East Bay Road, almost out to Interstate Highway 75. Nundy Avenue is the first east-west thoroughfare south of Gibsonton Drive, which intersects with Interstate Highway 75 to the east of town. It is primarily a two lane residential road. The Gibsonton shopping area is located primarily on Gibsonton Drive east of US Highway 41. The crossing at Nundy Avenue is presently guarded by cantilever flashing lights. These lights are scheduled to be upgraded to flashing lights and gates sometime during 1997. The average daily traffic count on Nundy Avenue is 2,948 vehicles, including 21 school busses. Nundy Avenue is rated for 5,000 vehicles per day. It can handle without difficulty any through traffic diverted from Mottie Road by virtue of the proposed closing of the crossing. Petitioners object to the closing of the Mottie Road crossing for several reasons, the primary of which is safety. According to Operation Life Saver, a non-profit organization, eighty percent of car/train accidents are due to driver error - stupidly driving across the tracks. Mr. Johnson, a member of the Petitioner and its spokesman at the hearing, contends that closure of the Mottie Road crossing will stop the crossings but it will also increase traffic at other crossings which will increase driver frustration. Mr. Johnson notes that the wreck of a 100 car train at the crossing at Pennsylvania Street, just south of the Alafia River not far north of town, would block traffic down through the Nundy Avenue crossing, but would not block the Mottie Road crossing. In the event Mottie Road were closed, however, that same wreck would cause an increase in emergency response time by eight to ten minutes. This could result in elderly people residing on Mottie Road who need life support having no way to get out in the event Roosevelt Road were also blocked by an accident. The likelihood of this combination of events is remote. The closest emergency medical service facility is located at the fire station on Gibsonton Drive. If that one was blocked due to a closing of Mottie and Roosevelt, the next closest facility is in Riverview, north of the Alafia River, or at Apollo Beach, six or seven miles south on US Highway 41. Mr. Johnson contends that safety is not the real reason CSX wants to close the crossing at Mottie Road. He claims the purpose is to save CSX money. No evidence was produced to support that contention however. Mr. Johnson also questions the accuracy of the traffic counts and the other statistics weighed by the Department in its evaluation of the application. The crossings were evaluated in the summer months when the population of Gibsonton is approximately 7,000 people. In the winter months of December through early March, the population doubles to almost 14,000 people, he claims. A large segment of this increase is due to the winter influx of carnival people who have large trucks and show equipment which requires a larger turning radius than a semi-trailer. As many as thirty large rigs come and go in that area each season. He asserts that Nundy Avenue is dangerous for trucks to use because the ditch banks beside the road are narrow and deep. Turning onto Mottie Road is easy. Turning onto Nundy Avenue is not. Again, no evidence was presented in support of this contention. Another objection to the closing of Mottie Road is raised by Robert A. Wood, a senior deacon at the neighborhood church. He contends that the closing will interfere with business in the church located at the corner of Church Street and Payne Avenue, currently accessible to a large portion of the congregation who come to church through Mottie Road. Echoing the concern of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wood cites the occurrence of an accident at Nundy Avenue and Roosevelt Road, and contends that such an accident would make it impossible for people to get out if Mottie Road were blocked. Mr. Wood also notes that the railroad bridge over the Alafia River is low and is opened three or four times a day. When trains are stopped south of the bridge because of this, they block all crossings north of Mottie Road. Mr. Wood opines that Nundy Avenue could not handle the extra traffic caused by the closure of Mottie Road without substantial additional modification of its intersection with US Highway 41. Though Mr. Wood is a retired engineer, he has no expertise in traffic management, and his opinions are based primarily on common sense as opposed to engineering practice. A substantial wave of objection to the closure by the residents in the area has been reduced to writing and submitted to the Department and to CSX though it was not presented at hearing. According to Mrs. Martha J. Johnson, vice-president of Concerned Citizens, these concerns were memorialized and furnished to Mr. Webb who was the Department’s point man at the time. Whereas the Department has been responsive, however, the railroad has not. Ms. Johnson is of the opinion that had CSX been more responsive to the community’s expressed concerns, the matter could have been discussed and resolved in an alternative manner. The controversy has come about because of CSX’s attempts to conform to the goals of the Federal Railroad Administration’s stated goal of closing twenty-five percent of all at-grade crossings by the year 2,000. In 1973, the federal Highway Safety Act emphasized crossing accidents and mandated the identification of hazardous crossings to be corrected or closed. The Act provided money to the states to fix or close these crossings, but these funds are not unlimited. From 1973 to the mid-1990’s the fatality rate dropped by fifty percent as a result of these efforts, but now appears to have leveled off. This has led to the conclusion that lights and gates are not the whole answer. Crossings have to be converted to overpasses or closed. Mottie Road is not active enough a road to justify an overpass, and in addition, the physical layout of the area will not support an overpass. As a result, the logical solution is closure. A legislative study done in 1994 revealed that there is an excessive number of crossings and recommended closing some of them. The instant closing proposal is a part of that effort. It costs the railroad approximately $800 per year to maintain this crossing. If signals were installed, (flashing lights), the yearly maintenance cost would increase to $1,500, and the installation of the lights and gates would cost an initial $100,000 to 150,000. Mr. Wollenzein, the railroad’s public projects engineer, looks at several hundred crossings per year from the standpoint of number of vehicles, speed of vehicles, type of vehicles, train traffic, train speed and the distance of one crossing to the next closest crossing. In the instant case, the vehicular traffic amounts to slightly under 500 vehicles per day, and there are five trains per day through the crossing each way. Trains are limited to a maximum speed of 40 mph through the crossings. In Mr. Wollenzein’s opinion, safety of rail and vehicular traffic would be enhanced if this crossing were closed. Closure would be the absolute prohibition of traffic through the crossing and without traffic, there can be no accidents. He drove the area and concluded there were several practical alternative routes which would compensate for the closing of the Mottie Road crossing. Though he cannot be certain closure would not interfere with emergency vehicle service, he does not believe it would. The fire department is located on Gibsonton Drive, east of US 41, co-existing with the EMS facility. Support for the closing also comes from Jack Webb, formerly with the Department and now a transportation engineer employed by the Texas Transportation Institute. Ninety percent of his work deals with railroads and crossing devices, tying those signals into the traffic system. Mr. Webb looked at the Mottie Road crossing site on several occasions, the first time being in September 1995 when some Department employees were evaluating potential closure sites. The Department decision to permit closure was made only after a thorough study of the site and public hearings to afford the public an opportunity to submit matters relating to the proposed action. When the Department contemplates closing an existing crossing, it considers alternate access, traffic, warning devices and the like. Based on the information he was able to gather on this crossing, Mr. Webb concluded there was a viable alternative to the crossing at Mottie Road; the one at Nundy Avenue. The Mottie Road crossing is a timber crossing which is in fair condition. There was no significant rust on the rails nor cracking of the timbers. There was, however, some minor cracking with wear on the timbers. Nundy Avenue, he opines, can handle from four to five thousand vehicles per day, and in his opinion, closing Mottie Road would not overtax Nundy Avenue. Mr. Webb also calculated the additional response times which would be occasioned by closing Mottie Road. According to his figures, EMS support from the Gibsonton Drive fire station would come off Nundy Avenue. Police response time to a critical point on US Highway 41 just east of the crossing on Mottie Road was 1.5 additional minutes from the south, and 45 seconds from the north. A critical point is that point in the neighborhood where additional response time would be the longest. Mr. Webb also checked with EMS, the fire department and the police about response times. The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department estimated that closure of the Mottie Road crossing might slow up their response times slightly from the south but not when coming from other directions. A fire department official opined that additional response time from the Gibsonton and Riverview stations would be nil, and that there would be an additional three to four minutes to come from Summerfield. EMS officials at the Gibsonton station indicated closure would have no impact upon their operation. The EMS official at the central dispatch office indicated the potential for detriment to their operations would be low even from the other stations. Mottie Road is not on a school bus route and bus transportation was not likely to be affected. At the public hearing on this matter some objections were voiced. As a result, the Department reevaluated all 3 crossings proposed for closing. On two of the three, valid arguments against closure were propounded, but neither related to Mottie Road. In the case of Mottie Road, the railroad agreed to construct a pedestrian crossing there even if the vehicle crossing were closed. The Department also considered the issue of turning radii for trucks as encouraged by the public comment. After visiting the site on several different occasions, and measuring the turning radius availability for trucks with fifty feet between axles, Department officials identified but one problem area located at the intersection of Nundy Avenue and Roosevelt Road, and as a result, indicated that the Department would widen the road there to accommodate the trucks’ turning radii without the need to acquire additional property. The Department also found that there is a shopping center on US Highway 41 about one-half mile south of Mottie Road. The Post office is located there as well, but closing Mottie Road would not have any major impact on access to that facility. Based on all the above, Mr. Webb concluded that closure was appropriate. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order granting permission to CSX Transportation, Inc., to close the at grade vehicular crossing over its track at Mottie Road in Gibsonton, subject to the railroad’s agreement to maintain a pedestrian crossing there and to upgrade the vehicular crossing at Nundy Avenue. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert S. Johnson Qualified Representative Jeanie Johnson Second Vice President Concerned Citizens of Gibsonton Area, Inc. Post Office Box 1304 Gibsonton, Florida 33534 Steven H. Shook, Esquire CSX Transportation, Inc. Law Department, J - 150 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Station Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Attention: Diedre Grubbs Mail Street 58 605 Suwannee Street, Suite 535 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of the L&N Railroad Company to close the Johnson Street or Post Office Road rail/highway crossing be DENIED. Respectfully submitted this 24th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dawn E. Welch, Esquire Beggs and Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 John Dowd, Esquire Post Office Box 129 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Secretary William N. Rose Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact After receiving evidence, hearing testimony and personally visiting the site of the subject railroad crossing and the area the crossing serves, I find: The subject of this hearing is a railroad crossing located 2,423 North of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Post SPA-803 in an area designated Four Points Way on the west side of South Adams Street, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, contends that the crossing is now a public crossing and should be closed or appropriate safety equipment should be installed. The safety engineer for Petitioner recommends flashing lights and gates. Respondent contends that the present signalization is adequate and the crossing should not be closed; that the railroad should maintain the current safety signalization at the existing crossing and that appropriate markings should be made at the highway and street approach to the crossing. Public use has increased from a few crossings per day to a 24-hour count of 1,186 vehicles on an average day in July, 1978. The increase in traffic has been generated by the number of business establishments in the industrial area and increased business. A large business catering to home owners has generated a large amount of business in recent years. The railroad crossings and streets make a complicated and congested traffic pattern: The subject crossing is located West of South Adams Street (State Road 363) on a paved but privately owned paved and curbed street which serves the industrial area. There is a short street connecting South Adams Street and South Monroe Street (State Road 61) directly across South Adams Street from the subject crossing. The area intersection has two major highways, South Adams and South Monroe, crossing each other with several exits and entrances. There have been many reported traffic accidents. The Panhandle Concrete Industry, Inc., is a concrete plant which has an entrance intersecting with the private paved road in the industrial park area West of the railroad. It uses the subject railroad crossing. Directly to the East and South of the subject crossing is a public generated unimproved road intersecting with South Adams Street, a short distance from the crossing. Approximately 600 feet North of the subject crossing is a paved but non-signalized crossing that is used by the general public doing business with Carpet City, The Canoe Shop, Home of Fibercell Manufacturing, Inc., Signs by Matlock, and a Department of Education warehouse. It appears that said crossing is subject to regulation by petitioner under Section 338.21(3), Florida Statutes. Approximately 1,000 feet North of the subject crossing is a public crossing on Bragg Drive. This crossing is marked by railroad cross bucks. There is an entrance to Bragg Drive from the Department of Education warehouse and also from the foregoing named businesses primarily served by the paved but non-signalized crossing. Respondent, Albritton-Williams, requested a permit for the opening of an at-grade public crossing on October 22, 1973. Thereafter, at a public hearing on July 15, 1974, it moved to amend the application so it could pave the subject crossing and contended that the crossing was in fact a private crossing. On November 6, 1974, the Recommended Order, which was adopted as the Petitioner's Final Order, concluded that the crossing was a private crossing and that the Florida Department of Transportation had no jurisdiction. Thereafter, the owners of the industrial area paved the street to serve the private business interests of the industrial park. Subsequent to the issuance of the Recommended Order, and subsequent to the paving of the street, the Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, determined that the formerly designated private crossing is in fact a public crossing and that the Petitioner has and should exert regulatory authority over the crossing as required by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes. It petitioned for subject hearing. There are a number of owners and lessees of the area including: Panhandle Concrete Industries, Inc.; Scottie's; Eli-Witt Company; Four Points Industrial Park and Albritton-Williams, Inc. These owners and lessees are all businesses which invite the public to their doors and presently require the crossing of subject railroad both to and from the businesses. There is no other improved exit or entrance to the industrial and business area. The roadways within the park have not been dedicated to the City, County or State. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad uses the three tracks enroute Lo St. Marks, Florida, three days a week, twice each day, travelling between ten and twenty miles per hour. The three to eight car train runs in the afternoons between 3:00 o'clock and 4:00 o'clock to St. Marks and returns. The tracks run North and South and the road runs East and West. The testimony elicited stated that the train takes about five minutes per crossing, six times each week, twice each day on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The rail highway grade crossing index introduced into evidence placed the crossing at 2,848 on a priority rating the highest being 8 and the lowest being 5,639 for corrective action at public railroad crossings in the State of Florida. The accident potential of subject crossing is 06 on a scale of 40.19. There have been no reported accidents at the subject crossing. The vehicular traffic at the crossing can back up on South Adams Street at the time of the crossing of the train for the reason that the area between the closest railroad track and the outer edge of the travel lane going South on Adams Street is approximately 90 to 95 feet with storage for about three vehicles. Highway and street approach markings although helpful would not solve the problem of congested traffic. The property that the existing crossing serves is within the cite limits of Tallahassee, Florida. The proposed order of the Respondent has been examined and each proposed fact has been treated in this Order. The Hearing Officer further finds: The subject crossing is a public crossing and there has been a crossing in said general area which had been used by the public in excess of twenty years. There is a need for a railroad crossing to serve the industrial area that stretches from the privately paved road of Respondent North to Bragg Street and South of the concrete plant. A crossing in the area is required for the convenience of the business interest in the area. The subject crossing creates a hazard because of its location directly West of South Adams Street and across from the short cross-connection between South Adams Street and South Monroe Street. This hazard is increased by other cross-connections between these major streets and by a public railroad crossing on State Road 61, South Monroe Street approximately 400 feet South of the subject crossing. The hazard is caused by the location of the crossing rather than the crossing itself.
Recommendation Close the crossing in not less than 90 days or more than 100 days from date hereof. Upon petition by the respondent or other interested parties, open a crossing to serve the needs and convenience of the owners and lessees at the closing of the subject crossing at a location that will not cause a traffic hazard and will meet standards required by the Petitioner, Department of Transportation. Consideration should be given to directing all traffic crossing the railroad to one crossing serving the entire commercial area which includes interests in addition to respondents. The non-signalized crossing should be scrutinized. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank King, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Roy T. Rhodes, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jesse F. Warren, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 E. Eugene Buzard Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida Rhett Miller, City Engineer City Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN RE: Petition of State of Florida, Department of Transportation for closing of, or in the alternative, installation of appropriate safety equipment at, CASE NO. 77-1751 a public at-grade railroad crossing 2,423 feet north of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company Mile Post SPA-803 and a proposed street at Four Points Industrial Park in Tallahassee, Florida. /
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted for a public at-grade crossing over Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracts near its Milepost AX-892.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Mitchell Hope and Hardee County, Florida, by application to the Department of Transportation, sought to open a public railroad-highway grade crossing at a location where a proposed road would intersect the tracks and right of way of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company near its Milepost AX-892. The property to be reached by the proposed at-grade crossing is owned by Applicant Hope and other private individuals. Other access to the property would be by crossing the Peace River to the south and east, or industrial property to the north, or by a grade separation over the railroad. The property consists of approximately 77 acres, of which 25 acres could be developed for residential purposes consisting of one-acre plots. The nearest crossing to the south is a public crossing in Zolfo Springs, approximately one-half mile; the nearest crossing to the north is a private crossing, approximately one mile. The scheduled train speed is thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Two freight trains each weekday and one each weekend day are scheduled to pass the proposed crossing. Applicant Hope is willing to close the crossing to the public by means of a gate. The Board of County Commissioners of Hardee County is willing to accept the road and crossing into the County Road System provided the road meets engineering standards. Representatives of both Applicants are unwilling to provide or maintain automatic grade crossing traffic control devices. The roadway approaches to the proposed crossing are as follows: From the west the sight distances between the roadway and the tracks are good provided the foliage and underbrush are kept cut near the ground. From the east the sight distance to the northeast quadrant is obstructed by trees and underbrush and complicated by the track curvature to the northeast; the sight distance to the southeast quadrant is somewhat less obscured but could be blocked by the growth of trees and underbrush. The track approaches to the proposed crossing from the north are complicated by the curvature of the track which tends to prevent a view of the crossing until the train is within one-third of a mile from the crossing; the track view of the northeast quadrant is blocked by trees. The track approaches from the south are good. The Department of Transportation has recommended the installation of automatic grade crossing traffic control devices consisting of flashing lights, bells and gates at such location if a crossing is found to be necessary.
Recommendation Dismiss the application to open a public railroad-highway grade crossing at a location near Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Milepost AX-892, but retain jurisdiction for some future time when the facts may indicate the necessity for the crossing at which time the type of traffic control devices can be determined. Hold each of the other proposed findings of fact and requests to be without merit. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Brian J. Pappas, Esquire Attorney at Law 305 North Sixth Avenue Wauchula, Florida 33873 G. S. Burlesen, Sr. Assistant State Utility Engr. (RRS) Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 R. Earl Collins, Esquire Attorney, Hardee County Wauchula, Florida 33873 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co. 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Granting or denial of a permit to open a public at-grade railroad crossing as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners desired to be granted a permit for the opening of a public at-grade railroad crossing in connection with the construction of a new four-lane vehicular facility. The alignment of the facility was determined after several alternate studies had been made. Its purpose is to provide a means to move traffic from the Pensacola Bay Bridge through the historical district of Pensacola and on to the west side of the City near Barrancas Avenue. To utilize this alignment, it is necessary to cross a spur track of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. Safety studies conducted on the basis of accepted safety criterion reveal that the installation and maintenance of automatically-operated cantilevered flashing lights and gates in addition to standard pavement markings, crossbucks and discs would be necessary to protect the safety of both rail and vehicular traffic. The Petitioners agreed to bear the expenses of the installation of such signalization. The permit should be granted.
Recommendation The permit shall be granted for the opening of the subject crossing conditioned upon the installation and maintenance of signalization as set forth in the facts. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 G. S. Burleson, Sr. Asst. State Utility Engr. (RRs) Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 M. H. Smith, Esquire Attorney for Louisville-Nashville Railroad Company P. O. Box 1198 Louisville, Ky. 40201 County Attorney Escambia County County Courthouse Pensacola, Florida
