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 The granting or denial of a permit to open a public at-grade crossing as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, 1977.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant petitions for a public at-grade crossing constructed in the vicinity of Mt. Dora, Florida, and 1,202 feet west of Milepost ATA-794 across the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company tracks. The purpose of this proposed crossing is to give public access from State Road 500, also known as Old U.S. Highway #441, to a shopping center, said shopping center containing a Publix Super Market, an Eckerd Drugs and a number of other retail stores to serve the public needs of Mt. Dora; all of the parties hereto having stipulated to the need for said crossing for public access to the shopping center, as the Applicant has no other means of ingress and egress to the shopping center which is completely constructed and ready for opening. The proposed crossing shall be a four-lane drive way, 64 feet in width, with two 24 foot paved access roads and a 16 foot median in the center. There are no permitted public at-grade crossings in the immediate vicinity; however, there are existing private grade crossings on both the east and west boundary of the shopping center which are used by the public. The existing grade crossing on the east is 787 feet from the proposed crossing, being DOT crossing #621-816X; the grade crossing on the west is 430 feet from the proposed crossing, being DOT crossing #621-818L. The Applicant has agreed that the only public access to the shopping center would be across the subject proposed public at-grade crossing and the public and the employees of the Applicant would be prevented from crossing the at-grade crossings on the east and west of the property by a chain-link fence to be constructed across the paved access roads that could allow traffic to use the two existing private at-grade crossings. The chain-link fence on the east side would be solid with no openings; the chain-link fence on the west side would contain an 8 foot gate which would be locked. The sole purpose of the gate would be to provide emergency vehicle access to the city of Mt. Dora for fire trucks, police or other emergency vehicles should the necessity arise for such access. The public would be unable, except in an emergency situation, to obtain access to the shopping center by using the existing private at-grade crossings to the east and west of the proposed public at-grade crossing. Applicant has shown that the shopping center is virtually complete and ready for opening and that there is an economic need and public necessity for said shopping center as shown by the market surveys done by the Applicant, by Publix Super Markets and Eckerd Drugs, and that it would work an economic hardship on the Applicant and deprive the citizens of Mt. Dora from the use of said shopping facilities if the public at-grade crossing is delayed in opening. It has been determined by the Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation that the immediate installation of the signals called for herein would adversely affect the scheduled installation of signal improvements at grade crossings deemed to have a higher statewide priority. The Applicant has agreed to provide two flagmen to be located at each of the paved entranceways to the proposed at-grade crossing to prevent traffic from entering or leaving the shopping center during train movements. Said persons shall be on duty between the hours of 2:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. or dusk, whichever occurs first, which are the hours of train movement across the proposed public at-grade crossing, there being at this time 3 trains per week, resulting in 6 movements over the proposed new public at-grade railroad crossing, with no night train movements and a train speed of 30 miles per hour. Further, said guards or flagmen shall have available to them a manual switch to control the vehicular traffic light on State Road 500, also known as Old U.S. 441, to prevent traffic movement while trains are crossing. The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad has stipulated that they will flag the proposed public at-grade crossing on any train movements other than during the times set forth above; Stipulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked Petitioner's Exhibit 1(a) and (b). The responsibility for the watchmen or flagmen at said crossing would end when the railroad active grade crossing advance warning devices become operational. The Applicant has further agreed to the Department of Transportation's recommendation to install, at the Applicant's cost, Class 4 signal devices with preemption of the vehicular traffic signal on State Road 500, also known as Old U.S. 441. The parties herein have agreed that there is a need for the proposed crossing and have no objection to the proposed crossing and signalization. The City of Mount Dora contends that a second public crossing is needed to serve the public.
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 The parties stipulated that the denial of the proposed crossing was based solely upon the type of signal or warning devices the applicant had proposed to install. The issue presented is limited to the type of warning or signaling devices which should be installed at the proposed crossing.
Findings Of Fact The proposed crossing would be created by the extension of Thomas Road over the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. Thomas Road runs northeast at approximately a 90-degree angle off the road known as Old 41 or Old Tamiami Trail, and its extension would cross the railroad approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Old 41. The Thomas Road/Old 41 intersection is located one-quarter mile southeast from the dead end of Old 41 in Lee County. Old 41 and Thomas Road are improved two-lane roads. Old 41 runs southeast for several miles and intersects US Highway 41. The extension of Thomas Road would terminate shortly after crossing the entrances to two proposed industrial parks. The proposed crossing will be the sole access to the 22-acre tract zoned for the heaviest industrial use permitted by Lee County. The tract has been sold in two sections of approximately equal size. The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad at the point of the proposed crossing consists of a mainline track and a spur, or storage track, which run parallel to Old 41 at the site of the proposed crossing. The mainline track runs from Tampa to Naples through the Fort Myers area in which the crossing will be located. The storage track runs 690 feet to the north of the proposed crossing and 1,400 feet to the south of the proposed crossing. The mainline track carries one train per day, and a speed limit of 35 miles per hour is imposed upon mainline traffic. The one train using the mainline track drops cars off onto and picks cars up from the storage track. These switching movements could entail multiple movements of rail traffic through the proposed crossing one time per day. Typically, cars would be dropped off onto the storage track as the train moved south on one day, and would be picked up as the train moved north on the following day. The number of cars dropped off onto the storage track would vary but would not exceed 60 cars, and there would generally be no more than 20 to 25 cars on the storage track at any one time. Each such car is 50 feet long. The mainline train is not run on Sundays. The projected vehicular traffic on Thomas Road is 791 vehicles per day over the crossing based on projected planning data developed by the Department of Transportation. Based on an assumed speed limit for Thomas Road of 35 miles per hour, a driver approaching the proposed crossing from Old 41 could see to the left of the crossing 85 feet and to the right of the crossing 92 feet from a point 200 feet from the crossing. Similarly, leaving the proposed industrial park, a driver could see 76 feet to the right and 46 feet to the left from a point 200 feet from the crossing. The 200-foot distance is derived from the distance it would take a driver to stop his vehicle while traveling at 35 miles per hour without going onto the track. There are existing railroad crossings in incorporated Fort Myers that carry ten to 20 times as much traffic as the proposed crossing which are not signalized. Although the Department of Transportation has emphasized signalization of existing railroad crossings since 1973, it has only completed the construction of or planning for the construction of signalized crossings on 750 existing crossings. The Department has established a numerical priority of signalizing existing crossings based upon the speed of vehicular traffic, the speed of railway traffic, the number of trains, the number of vehicles, the type of signalization or warning devices existing at the crossing, the number of lanes, minimum sighting distances, minimum clear quadrant sight distances, parallel roads, and school bus usage. Under the Department's system, the lower the number assigned to the crossing the higher its priority. Planning for signalization of existing railroad crossings is currently in the 800's. The Department's Safety Engineer identified the Townsend Street crossing in Wauchula as an existing railway crossing comparable to the proposed crossing. The Townsend Street crossing had a traffic count of 425 vehicles per day, two trains per day, 20-mile-per-hour train speed, traffic speed limit of 25 miles per hour, and minimum visibility in its worst quadrant of 57 feet. The Townsend Street crossing is not signalized and has a priority number of 3,250. Electrical signal and warning devices at railway crossings may be bypassed and turned off by railway personnel during switching operations. No evidence was introduced that the opening of the proposed crossing would endanger or damage the railroad operation. Opening of this crossing is necessary for the development of a major industrial property in Lee County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend approval of the proposed crossing with the required roadside flashing lights and bells on all roadway approaches to the crossing, with the following additional conditions: The speed limit on Thomas Road be set at 20 miles per hour; 1/ The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be required to use a flagman at the crossing when switching cars onto the storage track over the crossing; The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be required to store cars at the southern-most end of the storage track and not leave cars on the northern end of the storage track when a flagman is not present; 1/ and The obstructions to vision be removed from the area surrounding the crossing to permit a driver approaching the crossing at 25 miles per hour to see a train in sufficient time to stop before moving onto the track. 1/ DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1980.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the at- grade railroad crossing over the CSX railroad tracks located at Mottie Road in Gibsonton should be closed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, CSX Transportation, Inc. operated a railroad running generally north and south through the city of Gibsonton, located in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for the licensing and permitting of at-grade railroad crossings located on the public roads of this state. The Petitioner, Concerned Citizens of Gibsonton Area, Inc. is a private citizens group whose purpose is the betterment of living conditions in the community. The at-grade crossing in issue is located where Mottie Road crosses the CSX tracks in Gibsonton. On January 26, 1996, CSX submitted an application to the Department to close the Mottie Road crossing. That crossing was one of three crossings proposed for closing. Pursuant to the requirements of the Department, a public hearing was conducted on the closings at which the railroad presented its proposal and affected citizens were given an opportunity to submit matters in opposition to the closings. On April 25, 1996, after a review of the matters submitted by the applicant and by the public at the hearing held for that purpose, the Department issued the instant Intent to Issue permit. There is only one track at the Mottie Road crossing. Mottie Road is paved and is approximately twenty feet wide at the crossing. It supports an average daily traffic of approximately 434 vehicles per day. It is, primarily, a rather short residential street though it does carry some commercial traffic. It runs east and west. One end of Mottie Road ends where it intersects with Roosevelt Road on the east and the other ends at US Highway 41 just west of the crossing. The crossing has no active signal, but motorists are advised of the crossing by cross-bucks at each side. Nundy Avenue is the east-west roadway just north of Mottie Road. Whereas Mottie Road runs for only several blocks, Nundy Avenue runs from Lula Street, a north-south street west of US Highway 41, east to its intersection with East Bay Road, almost out to Interstate Highway 75. Nundy Avenue is the first east-west thoroughfare south of Gibsonton Drive, which intersects with Interstate Highway 75 to the east of town. It is primarily a two lane residential road. The Gibsonton shopping area is located primarily on Gibsonton Drive east of US Highway 41. The crossing at Nundy Avenue is presently guarded by cantilever flashing lights. These lights are scheduled to be upgraded to flashing lights and gates sometime during 1997. The average daily traffic count on Nundy Avenue is 2,948 vehicles, including 21 school busses. Nundy Avenue is rated for 5,000 vehicles per day. It can handle without difficulty any through traffic diverted from Mottie Road by virtue of the proposed closing of the crossing. Petitioners object to the closing of the Mottie Road crossing for several reasons, the primary of which is safety. According to Operation Life Saver, a non-profit organization, eighty percent of car/train accidents are due to driver error - stupidly driving across the tracks. Mr. Johnson, a member of the Petitioner and its spokesman at the hearing, contends that closure of the Mottie Road crossing will stop the crossings but it will also increase traffic at other crossings which will increase driver frustration. Mr. Johnson notes that the wreck of a 100 car train at the crossing at Pennsylvania Street, just south of the Alafia River not far north of town, would block traffic down through the Nundy Avenue crossing, but would not block the Mottie Road crossing. In the event Mottie Road were closed, however, that same wreck would cause an increase in emergency response time by eight to ten minutes. This could result in elderly people residing on Mottie Road who need life support having no way to get out in the event Roosevelt Road were also blocked by an accident. The likelihood of this combination of events is remote. The closest emergency medical service facility is located at the fire station on Gibsonton Drive. If that one was blocked due to a closing of Mottie and Roosevelt, the next closest facility is in Riverview, north of the Alafia River, or at Apollo Beach, six or seven miles south on US Highway 41. Mr. Johnson contends that safety is not the real reason CSX wants to close the crossing at Mottie Road. He claims the purpose is to save CSX money. No evidence was produced to support that contention however. Mr. Johnson also questions the accuracy of the traffic counts and the other statistics weighed by the Department in its evaluation of the application. The crossings were evaluated in the summer months when the population of Gibsonton is approximately 7,000 people. In the winter months of December through early March, the population doubles to almost 14,000 people, he claims. A large segment of this increase is due to the winter influx of carnival people who have large trucks and show equipment which requires a larger turning radius than a semi-trailer. As many as thirty large rigs come and go in that area each season. He asserts that Nundy Avenue is dangerous for trucks to use because the ditch banks beside the road are narrow and deep. Turning onto Mottie Road is easy. Turning onto Nundy Avenue is not. Again, no evidence was presented in support of this contention. Another objection to the closing of Mottie Road is raised by Robert A. Wood, a senior deacon at the neighborhood church. He contends that the closing will interfere with business in the church located at the corner of Church Street and Payne Avenue, currently accessible to a large portion of the congregation who come to church through Mottie Road. Echoing the concern of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wood cites the occurrence of an accident at Nundy Avenue and Roosevelt Road, and contends that such an accident would make it impossible for people to get out if Mottie Road were blocked. Mr. Wood also notes that the railroad bridge over the Alafia River is low and is opened three or four times a day. When trains are stopped south of the bridge because of this, they block all crossings north of Mottie Road. Mr. Wood opines that Nundy Avenue could not handle the extra traffic caused by the closure of Mottie Road without substantial additional modification of its intersection with US Highway 41. Though Mr. Wood is a retired engineer, he has no expertise in traffic management, and his opinions are based primarily on common sense as opposed to engineering practice. A substantial wave of objection to the closure by the residents in the area has been reduced to writing and submitted to the Department and to CSX though it was not presented at hearing. According to Mrs. Martha J. Johnson, vice-president of Concerned Citizens, these concerns were memorialized and furnished to Mr. Webb who was the Department’s point man at the time. Whereas the Department has been responsive, however, the railroad has not. Ms. Johnson is of the opinion that had CSX been more responsive to the community’s expressed concerns, the matter could have been discussed and resolved in an alternative manner. The controversy has come about because of CSX’s attempts to conform to the goals of the Federal Railroad Administration’s stated goal of closing twenty-five percent of all at-grade crossings by the year 2,000. In 1973, the federal Highway Safety Act emphasized crossing accidents and mandated the identification of hazardous crossings to be corrected or closed. The Act provided money to the states to fix or close these crossings, but these funds are not unlimited. From 1973 to the mid-1990’s the fatality rate dropped by fifty percent as a result of these efforts, but now appears to have leveled off. This has led to the conclusion that lights and gates are not the whole answer. Crossings have to be converted to overpasses or closed. Mottie Road is not active enough a road to justify an overpass, and in addition, the physical layout of the area will not support an overpass. As a result, the logical solution is closure. A legislative study done in 1994 revealed that there is an excessive number of crossings and recommended closing some of them. The instant closing proposal is a part of that effort. It costs the railroad approximately $800 per year to maintain this crossing. If signals were installed, (flashing lights), the yearly maintenance cost would increase to $1,500, and the installation of the lights and gates would cost an initial $100,000 to 150,000. Mr. Wollenzein, the railroad’s public projects engineer, looks at several hundred crossings per year from the standpoint of number of vehicles, speed of vehicles, type of vehicles, train traffic, train speed and the distance of one crossing to the next closest crossing. In the instant case, the vehicular traffic amounts to slightly under 500 vehicles per day, and there are five trains per day through the crossing each way. Trains are limited to a maximum speed of 40 mph through the crossings. In Mr. Wollenzein’s opinion, safety of rail and vehicular traffic would be enhanced if this crossing were closed. Closure would be the absolute prohibition of traffic through the crossing and without traffic, there can be no accidents. He drove the area and concluded there were several practical alternative routes which would compensate for the closing of the Mottie Road crossing. Though he cannot be certain closure would not interfere with emergency vehicle service, he does not believe it would. The fire department is located on Gibsonton Drive, east of US 41, co-existing with the EMS facility. Support for the closing also comes from Jack Webb, formerly with the Department and now a transportation engineer employed by the Texas Transportation Institute. Ninety percent of his work deals with railroads and crossing devices, tying those signals into the traffic system. Mr. Webb looked at the Mottie Road crossing site on several occasions, the first time being in September 1995 when some Department employees were evaluating potential closure sites. The Department decision to permit closure was made only after a thorough study of the site and public hearings to afford the public an opportunity to submit matters relating to the proposed action. When the Department contemplates closing an existing crossing, it considers alternate access, traffic, warning devices and the like. Based on the information he was able to gather on this crossing, Mr. Webb concluded there was a viable alternative to the crossing at Mottie Road; the one at Nundy Avenue. The Mottie Road crossing is a timber crossing which is in fair condition. There was no significant rust on the rails nor cracking of the timbers. There was, however, some minor cracking with wear on the timbers. Nundy Avenue, he opines, can handle from four to five thousand vehicles per day, and in his opinion, closing Mottie Road would not overtax Nundy Avenue. Mr. Webb also calculated the additional response times which would be occasioned by closing Mottie Road. According to his figures, EMS support from the Gibsonton Drive fire station would come off Nundy Avenue. Police response time to a critical point on US Highway 41 just east of the crossing on Mottie Road was 1.5 additional minutes from the south, and 45 seconds from the north. A critical point is that point in the neighborhood where additional response time would be the longest. Mr. Webb also checked with EMS, the fire department and the police about response times. The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department estimated that closure of the Mottie Road crossing might slow up their response times slightly from the south but not when coming from other directions. A fire department official opined that additional response time from the Gibsonton and Riverview stations would be nil, and that there would be an additional three to four minutes to come from Summerfield. EMS officials at the Gibsonton station indicated closure would have no impact upon their operation. The EMS official at the central dispatch office indicated the potential for detriment to their operations would be low even from the other stations. Mottie Road is not on a school bus route and bus transportation was not likely to be affected. At the public hearing on this matter some objections were voiced. As a result, the Department reevaluated all 3 crossings proposed for closing. On two of the three, valid arguments against closure were propounded, but neither related to Mottie Road. In the case of Mottie Road, the railroad agreed to construct a pedestrian crossing there even if the vehicle crossing were closed. The Department also considered the issue of turning radii for trucks as encouraged by the public comment. After visiting the site on several different occasions, and measuring the turning radius availability for trucks with fifty feet between axles, Department officials identified but one problem area located at the intersection of Nundy Avenue and Roosevelt Road, and as a result, indicated that the Department would widen the road there to accommodate the trucks’ turning radii without the need to acquire additional property. The Department also found that there is a shopping center on US Highway 41 about one-half mile south of Mottie Road. The Post office is located there as well, but closing Mottie Road would not have any major impact on access to that facility. Based on all the above, Mr. Webb concluded that closure was appropriate. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order granting permission to CSX Transportation, Inc., to close the at grade vehicular crossing over its track at Mottie Road in Gibsonton, subject to the railroad’s agreement to maintain a pedestrian crossing there and to upgrade the vehicular crossing at Nundy Avenue. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert S. Johnson Qualified Representative Jeanie Johnson Second Vice President Concerned Citizens of Gibsonton Area, Inc. Post Office Box 1304 Gibsonton, Florida 33534 Steven H. Shook, Esquire CSX Transportation, Inc. Law Department, J - 150 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Station Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Attention: Diedre Grubbs Mail Street 58 605 Suwannee Street, Suite 535 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation should issue a permit for the installation of a public at-grade railroad crossing in the vicinity of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad track, 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 on the alignment of Baya Avenue, East of Lake City, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony of witnesses for the petitioner and the arguments of counsel and those witnesses appearing for the Department of Transportation on the issues and considering the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, is duly authorized to establish and maintain a primary system of highways within the boundaries of the State of Florida. The Petitioner has heretofore filed an application with the appropriate division of the Department of Transportation of the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 330.21 Florida Statutes, for Permission to establish a graded railroad crossing for Baya Avenue (U.S. 90) within the city limits of Lake City, Florida on the state primary highway system proposed to intersect the Respondent Railroad's tracks approximately 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad. The Respondent Railroad Company did not appear although the record shows that Notice of Hearing was properly given and that plans of the project and proposed signalization were duly sent by letter dated October 8, 1975. There was uncontroverted testimony by Mr. Terry Crews, Assistant District Utilities Engineer for the Petitioner that Mr. R. A. Kelso, Chief Engineer, Design and Construction, Southern Railway System had discussed a portion of the project by telephone with Mr. Crews and no objections were raised. No letters of objection were filed. The Petitioner is in the process of constructing a new four-lane vehicular thoroughfare. This construction is necessary in the rerouting of vehicular traffic through Lake City, Florida (U.S. 90). As a part of this construction it is necessary to cross the railroad and State Road 100 which lie adjacent to each other. It will be a four-lane divided highway with a painted median, with curbs and gutters in the vicinity of the crossing. At the time of construction, the railroad will consist of single-line trackage that carries two (2) trains per day at speeds of approximately 20 miles per hour. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 vehicles per day will use this facility by 1984. Studies conducted by Department of Transportation personnel reveal that the crossing should be signalized with cantilevered flashing lights, ringing bells and pavement markings in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This signalization should be interconnected with vehicle traffic signalization located at State Road 100 to control vehicular traffic at the highway crossing as well as the railroad crossing. The applicant agrees to install and maintain such signalization. The Hearing officer further finds: The proposed crossing is necessary and desirable; The signalization is adequate as planned, to protect the public; The Petitioner needs the crossing; The Respondent has not opposed the crossing; The Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, will Install and maintain the crossing.
The Issue Whether 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
Recommendation It is recommended that the permit be granted and that the crossing be opened subject to the type of crossing protection equipment agreed on by the parties DONE and ORDERED this 23 day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Humes, Jr., Attorney Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Ralph B. Wilson, Attorney St. Lucie County Post Office Box 700 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33450 George L. Waas, Attorney Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation (DOT) should approve the permit requested by Palm Beach County (County) for a railway grade crossing over the tracks of the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) at Frederick Small Road.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On April 3, 1984, the Town of Jupiter, a municipality within the geographical boundaries of Palm Beach County, Florida, approved a resolution to participate with the County in an effort to obtain a railway grade crossing over the tracks of the FEC at Frederick Small Road. Frederick Small Road is designated as a major arterial roadway under the County's thoroughfare plan and the Jupiter comprehensive land use plan. Both plans designate that Frederick Small Road be improved to connect State Road A-I-A to Military Trail to establish an east-west corridor. Consequently, the resolution described in paragraph 1 was passed so that the two entities could pool their resources to obtain the permit necessary to construct the crossing. On or about June 12, 1984, the County engineer submitted a railroad grade crossing application to DOT. This application specified the crossing to be at Frederick Small Road and included attachments regarding the proposed location of the crossing, its design, and the authorization for the application from the local governments. On October 27, 1988, DOT issued an Intent to Issue Permit which found that the criteria set forth in Section 335.141, Florida Statutes, together with the applicable rule, had been met and approved the crossing under specified conditions. Those conditions were: The FEC will provide, furnish or have furnished, all necessary materials required for, and will construct at the Applicant's expense, a standard railroad crossing Type "T" Modified in accordance with the Department's Standard Index Number 560 attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "D". Upon completion of the crossing, the Applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance and maintenance costs of the roadbed and surface outside the limits of the railway ties throughout the crossing area. The Railroad Company shall be responsible for the maintenance of all track structure and rail components, including the road surface and substructure within the width of the rail ties throughout the crossing area, all at the expense of the Applicant. The Railway Company shall furnish the necessary materials and install at the Applicant's expense, automatic grade crossing signals and/or other traffic control devices, Type - IV, Class - III, in accordance with the Department's Standard Index 17882 attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "E". Upon completion of the signal installation, the Applicant shall be responsible for the annual maintenance cost in accordance with the amounts specified in the Department's Form 841-37, as amended, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "F". The Railway Company shall be responsible for the actual maintenance of the signal devices. The Applicant and Railroad Company shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement covering the grade crossing and signal devices and furnish the Department a copy of the executed Agreement. Construction of the public railroad - highway grade crossing shall commence within twenty-four (24) months from execution of this document or this permit shall become null and void. Frederick Small Road is located within a rapidly developing area of northern Palm Beach County. Access to this area has been enhanced by the opening of a segment of Interstate 95. Since the opening, the Jupiter community has grown dramatically. Development has also been encouraged by the change in a policy of the MacArthur Foundation which is now allowing development of large tracts of its lands. Formerly, these lands, located in the vicinity of the proposed crossing, were to remain undeveloped. As a result of the increase in population, traffic generated along Frederick Small Road has greatly increased. The other east-west corridors have also experienced increased traffic. Currently, traffic using Frederick Small Road must divert either north or south to railway crossings in order to cross the FEC. A crossing at Frederick Small Road would afford traffic a more direct access to a hospital, a school, and a major development. The growth experienced in the Jupiter area is likely to continue. The crossing at Frederick Small Road would be more likely to be utilized and be more convenient to use than other alternate traffic routes. The alternate traffic routes are congested; consequently, there are significant vehicular delays when trains traverse the crossings. An additional crossing at Frederick Small Road would not significantly delay railway traffic. The opening of the Frederick Small Road crossing should result in an increased likelihood of rail-traffic accidents. However, the likelihood of more severe accidents at the alternate route crossings would increase if the crossing at Frederick Small is not opened. A grade-separated crossing results in fewer rail- traffic accidents. Such crossings are appropriate when the traffic volumes are so great that the crossing at grade would result in a great likelihood of rail-traffic accidents. In this case, the estimated traffic volumes do not warrant a grade- separated crossing. The opening of a railway grade crossing creates a potential for railway liability based upon accident costs. The effect of the crossing proposed for Frederick Small Road should not adversely affect the railroad's operation expenses in another way. The costs associated with the maintenance of the crossing will be borne by the applicant. The County intends to close one railway crossing at a location south of the one proposed for Frederick Small Road. The closing of that crossing should result in a net reduction in operating expenses for the FEC. The costs associated with the potential liability due to traffic-rail accidents are not certain. Those potential costs do not outweigh the convenience to be derived from the opening of the crossing. The proposed design for the crossing and its signalization meet all applicable road-rail standards. There are no visibility factors to preclude the opening of the grade crossing proposed for Frederick Small Road. There are no existing passing tracks to be affected by the proposed crossing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the permit application for a railway grade crossing at Frederick Small Road under the terms outlined in the Intent to Issue. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 89-0536 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraphs 4 through 7 are rejected as conclusions, argument, comment or contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 8, it is accepted that the opening of the Frederick Small Road crossing will result in an increased potential for automobile/rail accidents at that location; however, there will not be a substantial economic impact on the FEC such conclusion is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 9, it is accepted that the Frederick Small Road crossing will cause reduced train speeds but that should not substantially impact the operations of the FEC; consequently, the balance of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE COUNTY AND DOT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 2 are accepted; the balance is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or argument. Paragraph 3 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 4 is accepted; the balance is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or cumulative. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 8 and 9 are accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 11-14 are rejected cumulative, irrelevant, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraphs 17-20 are rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraph 21 is rejected as cumulative. With regard to paragraph 22, it is accepted that the new crossing will result in an increase in train/vehicle accidents; otherwise the paragraph is rejected as argument or comment. The first two sentences of paragraph 23 are accepted; the balance is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 28 are accepted. Paragraphs 29 through 33 are rejected as cumulative, irrelevant, or comment. Paragraphs 34 through 36 are rejected as comment, argument, or cumulative. The first sentence of paragraph 37 is accepted; the balance is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 38 is accepted. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument, comment, and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III MOYLE, FLANIGAN, KATZ FITZGERALD & SHEEHAN, P.A. Post Office Box 3888 625 North Flagler Drive 9th Floor-Barnett Centre West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Lawrence Paine Florida East Coast Railway Company 1550 Prudential Drive Suite 400 Post Office Box 1380 Jacksonville, Florida 32201-1380 Rivers Buford Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact By application the Florida East Coast Railway Company seeks a permit to close an existing at-grade public railroad crossing located at Sebastian/Bay Street, Roseland in Indian River County, Florida. There exists a public at-grade railroad crossing 681 feet immediately to the south of the subject crossing at the intersection with Roseland Road. This crossing is protected by a full complement of automatic warning devices, consisting of flashing lights, ringing bells and gate. Roseland Road is a paved highway and well travelled. The subject crossing is an old crossing having been established approximately in 1907. There exists a visibility factor adverse to train and motoring public as a result of an elevation of approximately four (4) feet and of natural growth but there as been no known crossing accident in over some seventy (70) years. Traffic over this railroad crossing is not heavy. There exists a growing residential community to the west and east of this railroad crossing. The Sebastian River Medical Center (hospital) exists on the east. Fire protection for this area exists on the east. Testimony of users and letters oppose the closing of the crossing because the historical value of the railroad crossing, the location of the crossing for fire protection purposes, the location of the crossing for the health and welfare due to the location of the Sebastian River Medical Center, the only hospital located in the north end of the county; and the ease and convenience for the Roseland community reaching the main thoroughfare known as U.S. #1. The public crossing on Roseland Road is a busy crossing serving a much travelled road and is well signalized. In order to use this crossing it is essential to enter a busy highway. The people belonging to the church and the personnel of the medical facility use the Sebastian/Bay Street crossing; school children use it and the residents of the Roseland area, many of whom are elderly, use it.
