The Issue Whether the application for an at grade vehicle railroad crossing permit should be issued to the City of Holly Hill by the Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact The City of Holly Hill, Florida, filed an application with DOT for an at grade railroad crossing permit on Tenth Street at Milepost 107+1513', in the city of Holly Hill. The DOT denied the City's application by letter dated November 27, 1991, which enclosed the Department's intent to deny the permit. The City petitioned and received a hearing to consider its application. The City of Holly Hill is located due north of the City of Daytona Beach on the east coast of the state of Florida. It stretches west approximately a mile from the Halifax River, and runs north for approximately two miles from the northern boundaries of the City of Daytona Beach. Tenth Street, where the proposed railroad crossing would be located, is a local street running east and west in the City of Holly Hill, Florida. West of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, Tenth Street connects with Center Avenue and continues further west to connect with Nova Road, both of which are major north/south connectors. To the east of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, Tenth Street runs less than one block and terminates at its intersection with US 1, the major north/south arterial road in Holly Hill. Immediately east of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks in the vicinity of Tenth Street, the City of Holly Hill maintains Holly Land Park, a major recreational area in downtown Holly Hill. Immediately to the west of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, the City of Holly Hill maintains a nature trail and facilities related to its public works department. The City seeks the permit for an at grade crossing alleging that (1) a large number of pedestrians are illegally crossing the track and have persisted in doing so notwithstanding warnings and citations; and (2) the City feels that opening a crossing at Tenth Street would relieve bad traffic congestion existing on Eleventh Street just north of Tenth at Eleventh's intersection with US 1. Video tapes and the observations of police officers of the City of Holly Hill establish a significant level of pedestrian traffic by adults and children over the railroad tracks between the western and eastern ends of Tenth Street. This practice is very dangerous. Some of the pedestrians walk their bicycles over the railroad tracks at this location. The majority of the young people crossing the tracks in this vicinity are moving east to utilize the facilities in Holly Land Park or moving west to go to the middle school and grammar school located respectively at the intersections of Center Avenue and Walker Street and Center Avenue and Fifteenth Street. This is a popular route because of the heavy vehicle traffic on Eleventh Street and Eighth Street. Warnings, citations, and patrols have not halted the illegal crossing of the tracks. Eleventh Street is located 1300 feet to the north of Tenth Street and also runs east and west from the Halifax River westward to beyond Interstate 95. Plans call for the development of an interchange at the intersection of Interstate 95 and Eleventh Street. Eleventh Street appears to be the only street in downtown Holly Hill which moves directly west in this manner. From Nova Road east to US 1, Eleventh Street runs parallel to and north of a large drainage canal. Two shopping centers are located at the intersection of Eleventh Street and Nova Road. Eleventh Street is so close to this drainage feature that pedestrian walks on the southern side of Eleventh Street were removed. Because of this drainage structure, Eleventh Street cannot be inexpensively widened. To the south of Tenth Street 1320 feet, Eighth Street runs east and west from the Halifax River to Nova Road. Both Eleventh and Eighth Streets are two-way streets along their entire length. The City bases it petition to open the crossing upon traffic congestion caused by east bound traffic on Eleventh Street seeking to turn left on US 1, and by north bound traffic on US 1 seeking to turn left onto Eleventh Street when Eleventh Street is blocked by rail traffic. The I-95/Eleventh Street interchange will increase traffic congestion on Eleventh Street. The City asserts that opening the proposed crossing would alleviate this congestion because traffic using Eleventh Street would then use Tenth Street. The traffic count on Eleventh, Tenth, and Eighth Streets was measured by the county. The traffic on Eleventh Street was 10,744; on Tenth Street was 1,019; and on Sixth Street was 6,153. According to a traffic projection run by the county traffic operations supervisor, 1,000 vehicles would be diverted from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street if a vehicle at grade crossing were opened at Tenth Street. Although this projection is suspect because it was made without any origin and destination surveys being done, the shift of 1,000 vehicles from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street is negligible in terms of its present and projected impact on Eleventh Street. It was uncontraverted that a ground level pedestrian crossing with adequate gates and signals would permit pedestrians to cross the railroad tracks quickly and therefore reduce their exposure to train/bicycle accidents. (T- 81,135.) Opening an at grade crossing on Tenth Street would create a greater potential for car/train accidents by increasing the exposure of vehicle traffic to railroad traffic. This was also uncontraverted. The fire station is currently located in the back of City Hall which is located immediately across US 1 from Holly Land Park. Plans exist to move the fire station from its present current location to a location in the vicinity of the Public Works Department along Tenth Avenue. The public library which is currently located at Holly Land Park affronting on US 1 may be relocated to the old school building located south of the city hall. Movement from the fire- station at its proposed location would be no better or worse than it is now because Tenth Street does not extend east across US 1. Emergency equipment will have to use Eighth Street or Eleventh Street to go east, and these streets are also the best routes west. The proposed crossing is not necessary based upon the traffic studies prepared by the City. Assuming the shift of 1,000 cars from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street, this would not warrant the expense and the potential hazard generated by permitting the proposed railroad crossing. It was uncontraverted that the best way to solve the congestion problem on Eleventh Street would be to widen it. However, it was universally acknowledged that this would be very expensive. While evidence is contradictory, the most credible testimony supports using one-way pairs on Eleventh and Eighth Streets as a low cost interim measure to improve traffic flow along the arterial routes. (T-112,145 et seq., and 173.) In addition to the crossings located at Eleventh and Eighth Streets, there are also crossing located at next to through streets south of Eighth, and at Fromich Street north of Eleventh. There would be more than five public crossings located within one mile of railroad track if a crossing were opened at Tenth Street.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered approving a pedestrian at grade crossing at Tenth Street in the City of Holly Hill, Volusia County, Florida; and That the Petition for a public at grade vehicular railroad crossing at Tenth Street in the City of Holly Hill, Volusia County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-0942 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Petitioner's Recommended Order Paragraphs 1, 2, 8 Recommended order paragraph no. 4 Paragraph 3, 5, 7, 10 Recommended order paragraph no. 7 Paragraph 4 Recommended order paragraph no. 8 Paragraph 6 Rejected, Data in Paragraph is more credible Paragraph 9 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 11 Immaterial Paragraph 12 Cumulative Paragraphs 13, 14 Immaterial Paragraph 15 Contrary to the fact that Tenth Street ends at US 1 Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 Contrary to more credible evidence Paragraph 19 .027 represents one train/car collision every four years. If you are in the car, that is significant. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 All these improvements do not establish the necessity for the proposed crossing and appear to be counter to good land use and traffic planning. Paragraph 26 No credible evidence to support this. Paragraph 27 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 28 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 29 Immaterial Paragraph 30 "de facto" crossings don't exist Paragraph 31 Immaterial Paragraph 32, 33, 34, 35 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 36 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 37 Speculative Paragraph 38 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 39 Paragraph 9 Respondent's Recommended Order Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1, 2 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 6, 10, 11 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 13, 14 COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Edward F. Simpson, Jr., Esquire Randal A. Hayes, Esquire Moore, Wood, Simpson, Correy, McKinnon and Vulkeja Post Office Box 305 Ormond Beach, FL 32175 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Recommendation Dismiss the application to open a public at-grade crossing at Country Club Boulevard in the Citrus Springs Community in Citrus County, Florida without prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd 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: James L. Shroads, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 George L. Waas, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Gordan S. Burleson, Sr. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Livingston, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida
Findings Of Fact The railroad crossing which is the subject of this proceeding is crossing number 272642-N, in the City of Miami, Florida. Its location at N.W. 13th Street is approximately 430 feet south of an existing crossing located at N.W. 14th Street, and roughly 850 feet north of another crossing located at N.W. 11th Street. The Railway's rationale for seeking to close the N.W. 13th Street crossing is that these other two nearby crossings offer practical alternate routes to the N.W. 13th Street crossing, and can provide adequate access to the area for the public and emergency services. The City's opposition is based on its contention that closure of the N.W. 13th Street crossing would adversely affect emergency access to the area, and would restrict access to the adjacent area where the City has at least two redevelopment plans pending which contemplate the building of approximately 10,000 new residential housing units. The Department of Transportation supports the closing of the subject crossing, contending that the existing crossings at N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street can carry the traffic that would be diverted from N.W. 13th Street, and that closing the N.W. 13th Street crossing would eliminate a hazard to the public at that point. The section of the Florida East Coast Railway involved in this proceeding runs from N.E. 79th Street to Biscayne Boulevard, a distance of approximately five miles. There are approximately 30 crossings now in existence over this section of the railroad's track. The principal justification for the closure of the N.W. 13th Street crossing is its proximity to the two crossings located at N.W. 11th Street and at N.W. 14th Street, and the resulting improvement in safety for vehicular traffic and railroad equipment. There is an overpass with large pillars directly above the subject crossing, and a curve in the railroad track at this location which tend to restrict the view of train crews as the crossing is approached. Closure will also eliminate upkeep and maintenance expenses caused by frequent vandalism at the N.W. 13th Street crossing location, and eliminate one sounding of the train whistle between N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street. The present signal device at the N.W. 13th Street crossing is between 20 and 25 years old, and should require replacement within the next two years at an estimated cost of $41,570, unless the application is granted and the crossing closed. In addition, this signal device has been the subject of vandalism on four different occasions during the months of August, September and October, 1981, which necessitated repairs at the crossing site. The frequency of vandalism at the N.W. 13th Street location exceeds that at most of the other crossings in the Miami area. Northwest 13th Street is not a through street, but is a localized road which is blocked by the embankment for I-95. It is one-way westbound from the general vicinity of Biscayne Boulevard and 2nd Avenue to just beyond the subject crossing where it becomes two-way past the I-95 embankment. Both N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street are arterial roads which pass beneath I-95 and are not blocked by the embankment. They are the alternate roads in the area with adequate capacity to carry the traffic diverted from N.W. 13th Street if this crossing were closed. The movement of fire, police and other emergency vehicles would not be impeded by closing of the N.W. 13th Street crossing, since the crossings at N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street are readily available and offer better access to the area than N.W. 13th Street. Police or fire vehicles moving eastward over the N.W. 13th Street crossing must travel over a circuitous route because N.W. 13th Street is not a two-way street east of the crossing. In addition, closure of the subject crossing would remove an existing conflict point (a point where the path of any vehicle is interrupted by another vehicle), which is beneficial from a safety standpoint. Finally, any population growth in the area will have adequate transportation over N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street and will not require the use of the N.W. 13th Street crossing. Consequently, there will not be any significant impact upon traffic over the crossings at N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street by closure of the N.W. 13th Street crossing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida East Coast Railway Company to close the at-grade railroad crossing at N.W. 13th Street in Miami, Florida, be granted. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this the 17th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Evans, Esquire One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Terry V. Percy, Esquire 174 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1982.
The Issue Whether the application of the Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC) to close the subject railway crossing should be dismissed for lack of regulatory jurisdiction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a propane gas distribution facility adjacent and parallel to the FEC railroad track within the Town of Lantana. The railroad track is between Petitioner's facility and U.S. Highway 1. To reach its property from U.S. Highway 1, Petitioner's employees must utilize a railroad crossing commonly known as Gator Culvert. The Gator Culvert is an at-grade railroad crossing. On October 13, 1948, the Town of Lantana acquired a right-of-way for road purposes at the Gator Culvert from Everett Wurtz, Petitioner's predecessor in title. On December 13, 1948, FEC and the Town of Lantana entered into a one-year renewable license to use the crossing for public road crossing purposes contingent upon the Town of Lantana assuming the cost of maintaining the crossing. On June 26, 1979, the Town of Lantana quit-claimed its interest in the right-of-way to Gator Culvert.2 On March 29, 1996, Petitioner filed suit against FEC seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding its rights to use the Gator Culvert crossing. This litigation is pending in Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. On June 28, 1996, FEC filed the subject application with Respondent for authorization to close the Gator Culvert crossing. On October 2, 1996, Petitioner amended the complaint that underpins the Circuit Court litigation to join Respondent and the Town of Lantana as defendants. By Count One of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner (referred to as Plaintiff in the Circuit Court pleadings) requests the Court to: . . . grant a declaratory judgment ruling that Plaintiff has a way of necessity purusant to F.S. Section 704.01(1) and that Defendants FEC, FDOT, and Town of Lantana may not close the crossing and thereby prevent Plaintiff's use of its way of necessity. Plaintiff further requests a trial by jury pursuant to F.S. Section 86.071. By Count Two of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner requests the Court to: . . . grant a declaratory judgment ruling that Plaintiff has a prescriptive easement and that Defendants FEC and the Town of Lantana may not close the crossing and thereby prevent Plaintiff's use of said easement. Plaintiff further requests a trial by jury pursuant to F.S. Sectioln 86.071. By Count Three of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner requests the Court to: . . . enter a temporary and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendant, FDOT from granting FEC's application to close the crossing; to restrain and enjoin Defendant FEC from ceasing to maintain and from closing the railroad crossing which provides the only access to Plaintiff's property; and to restrain and enjoin the Town of Lantana form executing the Stipulation for Approval of Closure3 or participating in any way with the attempted closure of said crossing. Count Four of the Amended Complaint pertained only to the Town of Lantana and did not involve Respondent. On August 14, 1998, Respondent published its Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application to close the subject railroad crossing in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This notice set forth Respondent's rationale for dismissing the application to close the Gator Culvert crossing that FEC had filed June 28, 1996, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The history of the crossroad, and its current condition indicate that it is not a public road. In particular, on the 26th day of June 1979, the Town of Lantana quit- claimed its interest to the right of way for public road purposes to Gator Culvert. While the prior status of the road as a public road is in doubt, this transaction effectively abandoned the right of way as a potential public roadway. Because the crossing is not a public railroad-highway grade crossing, the location is not subject to the Department's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 335.141, Florida Statutes. . . . On September 4, 1998, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with Respondent, the pleading that underpins this proceeding. On September 10, 1997, the Respondent issued a rails inventory that identified the Gator Culvert crossing as a private crossing. Scott Allbritton, Respondent's Rail Programs Engineer, reviewed and assessed the documents in the public record in processing FEC's application that were necessary and appropriate to determine whether the subject crossing was public or private, thereby determining whether Respondent lacked jurisdiction to regulate the subject crossing. His investigation revealed that the record title to the subject crossing was private. Based on Mr. Allbritton's investigation, Respondent determined that it lacked jurisdiction to regulate the subject crossing since it was not a public crossing. Respondent did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in making that determination. Respondent does not attempt to adjudicate real property disputes by its administration of the statutorily mandated railroad/vehicular traffic crossing program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that dismisses this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1999.
The Issue The 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.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant is seeking to relocate State Road 80 in Palm Beach County, Florida, and to construct a four lane rather than a two lane highway in order to accommodate increased traffic patterns. The relocated highway would cross the railroad owned by the Respondent 40 feet north of mile post 10. The railroad is a single track line used to haul sugar cane during harvesting seasons. The line is used approximately five months per year. Four trains with from 5 to 50 cars would pass the crossing from each direction every day during the harvesting season. These are low-speed runs, the trains moving at from 20 to 30 miles per hour. Approximately 8,000 vehicles will use the relocated highway daily. Six hundred forty vehicles per hour would pass the crossing during peak traffic hours. The highway will be a four lane rural type divided highway. Each lane will be 12 feet wide. There will be a 64 feet paved median at the crossing. The railroad track is located approximately 2 to 3 feet above ground. The highway design will be graded to meet the track at the level of the existing track. The safety of motorists would be adequately protected by installation of type four, class three warnings. These warnings would include flashing lights, bells, and gates. The lights would be cantilevered across the highway. Signalization would be activated by the trains approximately 30 seconds in advance of the train. The gates would come down 4 seconds later. The longest traffic hold-up would be approximately 2 to 3 minutes. The crossing itself would be a type "L" crossing. Type four signalization is depicted on Page 1 of Respondent's Exhibit #2, and is circled on the page. A type "L" crossing is depicted on page 4 of Respondent's Exhibit #2, and is circled on the exhibit. The safety of motorists would be more fully protected by installation of advanced warning flashers in advance of the track. These flashers would serve to warn motorists that they are approaching a railroad track. The safety of motorists would be most fully protected by installation of an overpass at the crossing. The traffic which will pass the crossing would not, however, justify the very substantial expense involved in constructing an overpass, and the fact that the railroad is used for only a portion of the year further renders the expense unjustified.
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at-grade railroad crossing by New Rail Line Construction in the vicinity of: 1420 feet west of Mile Post SX 904, Seaboard Coastline Railroad (Northwest 9th Street), Okeechobee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact A railroad grade crossing application was submitted by Petitioner, McArthur Farms, Inc., for "opening a public at-grade rail highway crossing by New Rail Line Construction" in an unincorporated area of Okeechobee County on Northwest 9th Street and Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Railroad Mile Post 1420 feet west of Mile Post SX 904, west 900 feet, east 686 feet. The type of roadway is an existing paved two-lane road. The proposal is for a single track spur to serve one (switcher) train per day at a speed of 4 miles per hour. The cost estimate is $5,000 with the cost of the installation charged to the applicant. The cost estimate for annual maintenance is $800 with the cost of annual maintenance charged to the applicant. The signal installation is to be performed by the applicant and is a "warning sign." The cost of the installation is to be charged to the applicant. The application was submitted on February 18, 1977 and received departmental approval on February 21, 1977. The parties submitted a joint exhibit which is the letter from the Respondent, Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company, stating: "Further reference is made to your letter of February 21, 1977, and my reply of February 25 which had to do with application of McArthur Farms, Inc., for a crossing at grade of existing 15th Street by an industrial spur track at Okeechobee, Fla. This Company will have no objections to this proposal with the understanding that all ex- pense in connection therewith, including cost of signals or other warning devices which may be required, will be assumed by the Industry. Presume we shall be given notice of the hear- ing on this application. Yours very truly, T. B. Hutchenson Assistant Vice President" The following statement was made by the attorney for the Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, and concurred with by the attorney for the applicant: "In summary, Madam Examiner, the applicant made application for a spur line, located between other spur lines, across a two lane road in a rural area. The crossing will be used to service a feed mill. The movements will be in the daytime. There are less than 5,000 motor vehicles presently using the two lane roadway, traveling at less than 30 miles per hour. The roadway is two lanes. The characteristics of the highway in ques- tion are conducive to manual flagging and stopping of traffic. There will be no night movements of the train. And it meets the factual requirements that fall within an exception to any requirement for active signalization inasmuch as the exception within which it falls is in the afore cited provision of the Florida Administrative Code. (Chapter 14-46.03(3)(g)2., F.A.C.) The applicant will pay for the installation of the crossing and the necessary cross-bucks as minimum signalization, and there will be provided manual flagging for the crossings. So need has been established, safety pre cautions have been arranged and the crossing itself falls within the exceptions to active signalization." The Hearing Officer further finds: The need has been established for the crossing. Safety precautions needed have been arranged.
Recommendation Grant the permit upon the applicant's submitting an agreement with the Respondent railroad for the installation of the crossing and the signalization. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of September, 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 Harry K. Bender, Esquire Nicholson, Howard, Brawner & Lovett 131 Dade Federal Building 119 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing by new roadway construction at the intersection of Berryhill Road and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad SYA 877-1610' South, Pasco County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail/ highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Robert K. Reese of Pasco County, County Commission District IV, Florida. The crossing location is in the municipality of Holiday. The local popular name of the street or roadway is Berryhill Roadway. The crossing is across the tracks of the Seaboard Coast Line railroad. The railroad mile post distance and direction is SYA 877-1610' south. The crossing would serve a subdivision known as Forest Hills East. The only entrance into the Forest Hills East Subdivision is a crossing by way of Elizabeth Avenue. This crossing is unsignalized and requires vehicular traffic to cross two spur line railroad tracks. There is a third possible entrance into the subdivision through a crossing known as Tumbleweeds but this entrance is undeveloped and is not now being utilized. The Forest Hills East Subdivision projects 250 single family dwellings in the development. There are no current plans to build condominium or apartment structures. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad previously approved water and sewer crossings underneath the railroad tracks at the Berryhill proposed crossing. There are deceleration and acceleration lanes and paving on the state road S-595 which leads up to the subdivision. There is an estimated three trains per week which would utilize the crossing and there is an unobstructed field of view from the center of the railroad track 1500 feet to the south and 700 feet to the north. On the proposed crossing proceeding in the western direction there is am available visibility of 89 feet south and 120 feet north with a train proceeding at 15 miles per hour. After public hearing in 1974 involving this same proposed crossing in which Dreher Construction Company, the developer of the subdivision, was the applicant, the Respondent, Department of Transportation, directed an issuance of the permit finding need but the issuance of the permit was conditioned upon the installation and maintenance of automatically operated signals consisting of flashing lights and ringing bells at the proposed crossing as the required safety measure. No permit was granted. The roadway has been built and access to the subdivision across the tracks is now complete except for signalization. Because of no signalization the entrance is now blocked for ingress or egress although at least two new homes have been constructed in the subdivision. The cost of the installation of the signalization which had been recommended by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, in 1974 and is still recommended, is between $30,000 and $40,000 with additional maintenance costs. The cost of the signalization of wooden cross bucks, stop signs and speed bumps with minimal maintenance costs is obviously much less although no evidence was submitted as to actual cost. The present applicant for the Berryhill crossing, the Pasco County Commission, District IV, represented by its Transportation-chairman Robert K. Reese requests that the permit for the proposed Berryhill crossing be granted without the requirement that electronic signalization be required. A need was cited for an additional crossing to serve the residents of the subdivision in addition to normal travel. Additional needs were cited by the fire department and hospital emergency vehicles. It was noted that many of the residents are retirees and that at times the one existing crossing is blocked by trains across the track. The applicant states that it is unwilling to expend county monies for the recommended electronic signalization. The developer of the subdivision is unwilling to install and maintain the electronic signalization. A large number of the residents of the subdivision want the proposed crossing opened immediately and at the hearing indicated that they felt that the roadside flashing lights were unnecessary and that they thought the cross buck and stop signs were all that is necessary. From a personal viewing of the Forest Hills East Subdivision and the crossing available to the residents therein, together with the evidence submitted, the testimony of parties who have substantial interest in the proposed crossing and after listening to the oral arguments of counsels at the hearing and the briefs submitted thereafter, the Hearing Officer further finds: There is an undisputed need for a crossing in addition to the present crossing to serve the subdivision. The present crossing is less safe than the proposed railroad crossing would be although both crossings are needed to serve the subdivision. The normal number of trains trafficking at the proposed Berryhill crossing is three times a week with a maximum scheduled speed of the train at 20 miles per hour. The crossing is needed and signalization of wooden cross arms and stop signs and speed zones would serve the public interest adequately although manual flagging of the train and the installation of flashing lights and ringing bells might be required at a future time. The need to the subdivision and the residents therein would be better served by opening the proposed Berryhill crossing inasmuch as it would give two entrances into the subdivision.
Recommendation Grant the permit for a period of one (1) year with wooden cross arms, a stop sign and traffic bumps as signalization and safety measures. Reevaluate after one year from date hereof. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. James Parker, Esquire Delzer, Edwards, Martin, Coulter & Parker Post Office Box 279 Port Richey, Florida 33568 Jeffrey H. Savlov, Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coast Lime Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On March 26, 1979, the Department filed an application for the closing of two railroad grade crossings known as Orange Street at Milepost A-825.48 and Murphy Street at Milepost A-830.30. Both crossings are located within the corporate limits of Davenport, Florida. The track which intersects the crossings services four passenger and ten freight-trains each day. The speed limit over the crossings is restricted by city ordinance to fifty miles per hour. Neither of the crossings is equipped with active grade crossing traffic control devices. Prior to recommending the closing of a crossing, a Railroad Committee within the Department meets and reviews petitions for closure. The committees primary concern in deciding whether to close a crossing is public safety and a secondary concern is public necessity. Additionally, convenience of the local population Is considered. The Orange Street crossing is utilized primarily by passenger cars and small trucks. In the twenty-four hour period in which traffic was counted, 696 vehicles used this crossing. The profile of the Orange Street crossing is very poor because the road is approximately seven feet higher than the railroad tracks, thus requiring a motorist to stop on a steep downhill grade when approaching the crossing. Cross-bucks are the only signalization at the crossing. The Department has proposed two alternate routes, Magnolia and Bay Streets, for the traffic presently utilizing the Orange Street crossing. Magnolia Street has recently been renovated and is scheduled for installation of flashing lights and gates in October, 1980. Because of the renovation and installation of lights, Magnolia can accommodate the expected added traffic. Bay Street currently has flashing lights and can accommodate the anticipated added traffic since it had a traffic count of 547 vehicles in a twenty-four hour period. There would be no substantive difference in adverse travel time for a motorist using either Magnolia or Bay Streets as opposed to Orange. Both crossings are safer than Orange Street. The Department does not propose to close sidewalks which cross the tracks at Orange Street and are utilized primarily by residents of a nearby retirement home. In regard to the other crossing which the Department seeks to close, Murphy Street, two alternate crossings are suggested, Magnolia Street and Bargain Barn Road. During a twenty-four hour period in which traffic was counted, 256 vehicles used the Murphy Street crossing. This crossing is inherently dangerous for long trucks or tractor-trailer vehicles due to its abrupt vertical profile or "hump." The Murphy Street crossing ends in a "T" intersection and its closing would not hinder police or emergency services. The Magnolia Street crossing can accommodate the increased traffic which will result from the closing of Murphy Street. This crossing is almost level and is approximately 1,600 feet from Murphy Street crossing. Bargain Barn Road or State Road 547, is another alternate crossing. This crossing is safer than Murphy Street in that lights and gates were installed in March, 1980. It is 1,200-1,300 feet or a quarter of a mile away from the proposed closed crossing and would not cause adverse travel for local motorists presently using Murphy Street. The current traffic count at Bargain Barn is approximately 732 cars per day which would increase to approximately 860 if Murphy Street were closed.
