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 granting or denial of permits to open and to close public at-grade railroad crossings as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, 1973.
Findings Of Fact The petitioner is in the process of constructing a major vehicular traffic facility linking U.S. Highways 17 and 92 with Interstate Highway 4. All administrative and legal prerequisites for the project have been accomplished and sanctioned by court order. The project, as designed, requires a realignment of Greenwood Road. It also requires the closing of an existing artery in this portion of Collier County and at present it dead-ends at Goodlette Road. The county's long-range road plans provide for expanding State Road 951A to the west to join U.S. 41, or to connect with a road in the city that would join U.S. 41. Pending the acquisition by the city of the right to cross the railroad track, the county has not obtained any rights-of-way that will be required to connect the proposed Coastland Boulevard with SR 951A from its intersection with Goodlette Road. In Exhibit 2 the connection of these two arteries is indicated in the yellow area on the map, which shows Coastland Boulevard crossing Goodlette Road, and extending in an inverted curve northward to join SR 951A. In the absence of the actual acquisition of the rights-of-way, however, the portion indicated on Exhibit 2 east of Goodlette Road is a general proposal rather than a specific indication of where the road will be placed. The proposed rail grade crossing insofar as the city is concerned and without considering any further action by the county, would result in a road that would cross the railroad track and dead-end on a north-south artery road. Some 700 feet to the north is SR 951A, which presently dead-ends at the eastern right-of-way of Goodlette Road. Some 200 feet to the north of SR 951A and leading to the westward of Goodlette Road is 22nd Avenue North, which also dead- ends at Goodlette Road. Without further action by Collier County to extend the proposed Coastland Boulevard across Goodlette Road there would be three T- intersections on Goodlette Road within a span of less than 1,000 feet. From the foregoing it is concluded that there is an urgent need for the proposed new boulevard and a grade crossing over the Seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks. It is further concluded, however, that to allow this crossing without extending the proposed Coastland Boulevard to the east of Goodlette Road would not be in the best interest of the safety of vehicular traffic in Use area concerned. It is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the petition of City of Naples, Florida to install a railroad grade crossing in the vicinity of the proposed Coastland Boulevard and 603 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company mile post AX999 in Naples, Florida be approved subject to Collier County taking official action to extend Coastland Boulevard eastward of Goodlette Road. It is further RECOMMENDED that final approval of this grade crossing be withheld until such time as the City of Naples and Collier County submit to the Department evidence that the necessary rights-of-way have been acquired and money has been appropriated for the construction of that portion of Coastland Boulevard east of Goodlette Road. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of September, 1975 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julian Clarkson, Esquire Philip Bennett, Esquire General Counsel's Office Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether a permit to close the CSX public at-grade railroad crossing located at C and J Road in Santa Rosa County should be granted pursuant to Rule 14-46.003(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1994, CSX submitted an application to close the public at-grade railroad crossing located at C and J Road, (also known as Zero Lane) in Santa Rosa County. On November 8, 1995, DOT filed its Intent to Issue a Permit to close the C and J Road crossing. C and J Road is a narrow two lane, two-way paved road approximately 20 feet wide. The road runs roughly 0.2 mile in a north/south direction, with two zig-zag ninety degree turns at its southern end. After the road's ninety degree turn to the south, C and J Road crosses the CSX railroad tracks at the same elevation or grade as the railroad tracks and then "T" intersects with US Highway 90 via the crossing. Official area maps do not show C and J Road crossing the tracks or its intersection with US Highway 90. US Highway 90 runs roughly in an east/west direction. The CSX tracks parallel US Highway 90. One passenger and eight freight trains use the CSX railroad tracks and the crossing on a daily basis. At its north end C and J Road intersects with Johnson Road. Johnson Road extends generally in an east/west direction. It connects with St. Johns Road approximately 0.4 mile to the west of C and J Road. Additionally, Johnson Road connects with Airport Road approximately 0.5 mile to the east of C and J Road. Cassie Lane is a narrow, two-way, two-lane paved road. The road runs roughly north and south between C and J Road and Johnson Road. Cassie Lane connects to C and J Road via an "L" shaped curve just north of the crossing. Elimination of the crossing would turn C and J Road and Cassie Lane into a U-shaped road with exits on Johnson Road to the north. Currently, the curve intersection of Cassie Lane to C and J Road is overgrown with vegetation. The vegetation obstructs motorists' view of the intersection of Cassie Lane and C and J Road. However, sight obstructions for overgrown vegetation can be eliminated. St. Johns Road is a two-lane, two-way paved road. Airport Road is a two-lane, two-way, paved road. Both roads run in a north/south direction. There is about 0.5 mile between each road's intersection with Johnson Road and US Highway 90. Both St. Johns Road and Airport Road have an at-grade crossing with CSX Railroad near US Highway 90. Both crossings are protected by flashing lights and gates. However, the C and J Road crossing is protected by only flashing lights. Flashing lights alone are a less safe alternative to flashing lights and gates. Five school buses use Airport Road on a daily basis. One school bus regularly uses St. Johns Road on a daily basis. Likewise, at least one school bus uses C and J Road and Cassie Lane on a daily basis. The closure of the C and J Road crossing will not significantly effect the routes or efficient operation of any school bus. Additionally, fire, police and emergency medical vehicles use both St. Johns Road and Airport Road regularly. Again, the closure of the C and J Road crossing will not significantly affect fire, police, or emergency vehicles. St. Johns Road has an average daily traffic (ADT) count of 308 vehicles. Airport Road has an ADT of 1,534 vehicles. Both are more heavily travelled than C and J Road with an ADT of 35 vehicles. Both St. Johns Road and Airport Road can handle any additional traffic routed to St. Johns Road from C and J Road and Cassie Lane. Respondent's church is located on C and J Road northwest of the crossing. Respondent has been an active church for over 118 years. Respondent has approximately 98 contributing members from the church and its parish. Approximately sixty members, both young and old, of Respondent's congregation walk to the church on Saturday or Sunday for services and functions being held by the church. Some pedestrians coming from US Highway 90 follow the roadway over the crossing. However, many pedestrians regularly use two, more direct, well-beaten short-cut routes, over the railroad to Respondent's church instead of going out of their way to use the C and J Road crossing. It is unlikely that the closure of the crossing will have any impact on the walking routes of the church members. DOT inspected the crossing and recommended alternate routes should C and J Road's outlet to U.S. Highway 90 be closed. The alternate routes recommended by DOT are C and J Road/Cassie Lane-Johnson Road-St. John's Road and C and J Road/Cassie Lane-Johnson Road-Airport Road . All of the alternate routes were less than 1.5 miles and could be safely driven in less than 2.5 minutes. Neither the time nor distance of any of the alternate routes were shown to be inconvenient or unreasonable. Since the crossing is within the Santa Rosa County's geographical and governmental authority and responsibility for maintenance, DOT notified the Santa Rosa County Commission of its intent to close the crossing. However, the County did not request a hearing to prevent closing the crossing and consolidating the roadway traffic. The county probably did not request such a hearing because it had made an agreement with CSX and DOT to "help" close another road crossing in order to build a rail crossing on the road leading to the County's new prison facility. Additionally, Respondent has not provided or established the existence of an agreement between Respondent and a governmental body to assume jurisdiction of the crossing as required in Rule 14-46.003(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation's decision to close the rail crossing at C and J Road in Santa Rosa County should be sustained. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephen H. Shook, Esquire CSX Transportation, Inc. Law Department, J 150 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Maldrick E. Bright, Esquire Post Office Box 3513 Milton, Florida 32572-3513 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 535 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Transportation plans for Broward County made as long ago as 1965 provide for roads crossing the SCL tracks at N. W. 48th Street in Broward County and at S. W. 10th Street in Deerfield Beach. Both of these routes are now planned as principal E-W arteries providing four lanes of traffic. Rights of way for these routes both east and west of the SCL tracks have been acquired by the City of Deerfield Beach and by Broward County. Approaches for both of these arteries over the recently completed I-95 running just east of the railroad tracks have also been completed. Two crossings presently provide access from east of the tracks to the area here involved west of the tracks, one at SR 810 to the north and the other at Sample Road some 3 1/2 miles to the south. S. W. 10th Street in Deerfield Beach is just under one mile south of SR 810 also in Deerfield Beach, and N. W. 48th Street is outside the incorporated area of Deerfield Beach one mile south of S. W. 10th Street. The population of Deerfield Beach is approximately 31,000 and some 6,000 persons reside west of the SCL tracks. The largest development in Deerfield Beach west of the tracks is Century Village located south of and adjacent to SR 810. The only entry to and access from Century Village is via SR 810. In the event the crossing at SR 810 is blocked emergency access to Century Village and other areas west of the SCL tracks is via Sample Road or via the next crossing to the north in Palm Beach County some five miles north of SR 810. Fire protection for the unincorporated area of Broward County in the vicinity of N. W. 48th Street west of the SCL tracks is provided from the fire station approximately one mile east of the SCL tracks near SR 810 and US 1 in Deerfield Beach. To reach that area it is necessary to cross the tracks at SR 810, proceed west to Powerline Road, south to Sample Road, east to N. W. 9th Avenue, and north to the area. A similar route would have to be followed by other emergency vehicles either police or medical. Substantial growth of the area immediately west of the SCL tracks between SR 810 and Sample Road has occurred and developments are currently underway to provide numerous homesites, principally trailer park facilities, in this area. Sample Road has been widened to 6 lanes and is estimated to be 300 percent overcapacity if all land use plans predicated for the area are developed. Additional E-W arterial transportation routes are needed. SCL presently has a passing track or siding at the proposed S. W. 10th Street crossing. This siding is 5700 feet long and can accommodate 96 cars. Three-fourths of this track lies north of S. W. 10th Street and approximately 71 cars could be accommodated, on the portion of the siding north of S. W. 10th Street. This 5700 foot section of track is adjacent and parallel to the main track which presently carries 6 passenger and 6 freight trains per day plus approximately 2 switch trains per day. It is used to drop off cars for later pickup, for allowing north and southbound trains to pass, or for a passenger train to pass a freight train. Exhibit 16 was stipulated into evidence to show typical activity at this 5700 foot Deerfield Beach siding. During the period February 22, 1976 to April 13, 1976 the largest number of cars held on this siding at any one time was 68. Similar sidings (generally with greater capacity) exist at various places alongside SCL tracks. The cost of providing a grade separation crossing at the SCL tracks at either N. W. 48th Street or S. W. 10th Street is approximately one million dollars. While such a crossing would obviously be safer than a grade crossing, the cost to benefit ratio for the grade crossing over the grade separation crossing is 4.52 at 48th Street and more than 3 at S. W. 10th Street. The safety index for both of the proposed grade crossings with active safety warning devices is in the range of acceptability - each showing an accident probability of one every 11 years. Annual cost of the signals and warning devices to be installed on the grade crossing is some $21,000 a year while the cost of a grade separation structure is some $63,000 a year. Providing grade separation at S. W. 10th Street would necessitate the approach on the east of the track starting at about the same place the approach on the west side of I-95 starts, thereby effectively blocking any N-S access to S. W. 10th Street between I-95 and the SCL tracks. Although Exhibit 17 was not admitted into evidence one witness testified that the figures thereon, showing the cost of relocating the 5700 feet of siding at Deerfield Beach, were on the conservative side and would probably cost more. However, no evidence was presented that an at-grade crossing would render this siding useless for the purposes intended nor was any evidence offered to show that the value of this siding to SCL would be materially reduced by an at-grade crossing at S. W. 10th Street.
The Issue Whether Respondent Department of Transportation (DOT) may lawfully issue a permit authorizing Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) to close the railroad-highway grade crossing (the Crossing) located at Landon Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On July 14, 2002, McLaughlin filed an application with DOT for closure of the Crossing located in Jacksonville. Subsequently, on November 13, 2004, DOT issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit (Notice) to authorize the closure of the Crossing. On December 8, 2004, Jacksonville timely filed a petition challenging the proposed granting of the permit and these proceedings ensued. DOT’s closure program conducts studies on over 3700 public highway-rail grade crossings and creates an inventory to determine crossings that could use improvement for safety reasons and for determining crossing closure. Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-57.012 outlines the standards for opening and closing of railroad-highway grade crossings. Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-57.012(2) states that: [T]he Department will accept applications for the opening and closing of public railroad-highway grade crossing from the governmental entity that has jurisdiction over the public street or highway, any railroad operating trains through the crossing . . . The Department, on behalf of the State of Florida, will also open or close public railroad-highway grade crossings in accordance with the criteria set forth herein. Closure applications will also be accepted from individual citizens or groups, such as neighborhood associations. Opening or closure of public railroad- highway grade crossings shall be based upon Notices of Intent issued by the Department, administrative hearings conducted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, or upon a Stipulation of the Parties executed by any applicant, governmental entity, the appropriate railroad, and the Department . . . If the applicant chooses to pursue the opening or closure of the public railroad- highway crossing, the railroad and governmental entity having jurisdiction at the location are notified and provided a copy of the application. The governmental entity should provide a public forum for community involvement and contact affected individuals or groups to obtain input on impacts to the community . . . . The criteria for closing include safety, necessity for rail and vehicle traffic, alternative routes, effect on rail operations and expenses, excessive restriction to emergency type vehicles resulting from closure, design of the grade crossing and road approaches, and the presence of multiple tracks and their effect upon railroad and highway operations. The criteria for opening are the same except for the excessive restriction to emergency type vehicles. Through an initiative from the Federal Railway Administration (FRA), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to decrease the number of at-grade railroad crossings by 25 percent, DOT has made a conserted effort to close or consolidate, redundant, unsafe, and unnecessary crossings. Crossing closure presents substantial benefit, inclusive of a decrease in the funding and liability for the city and railroad, which in turn can reroute the funding to improve other transportation routes in the area, and most of all increase the safety to the traveling public because there are fewer intersections where cars and trains can collide. Janice Bordelon, DOT’s Rail Specialist oversees the openings and closings of all public highway-rail grade crossings throughout the State of Florida. Bordelon received McLaughlin’s application for closure on July 14, 2002. On August 14, 2002, she sent a copy of the application to Chief Ray Alfred, Jacksonville Fire Department; Mr. Lynn Westbrook, Jacksonville Public Works Department; Mr. Fred Kyle, Chief of Jacksonville Traffic Engineering Division; Mr. Charles A. Stone, Director of Engineering services for Florida East Coast Railway; and Principal Carole Benson, Landon Middle School. In addition, she visited the site on at least nine occasions where she met with the community, with Jacksonville’s officials, with the school and school board, and participated in meetings of Jacksonville’s safety, transportation and finance committees. Bordelon requested input from Jacksonville officials and gathered information from a variety of sources and eventually moved forward in working with Landon Avenue Residents and the professionals from Jacksonville to get to a Stipulation of Parties that would result in closure of the Crossing. In this process, Bordelon compiled a Closure Application Analysis applying all the Rule criteria to the Crossing. Once the analysis was complied, she provided it to Jacksonville officials, the district Jacksonville councilman, the applicant, and the School Board. The Stipulation of Parties was eventually withdrawn and Bordelon issued a Notice of Intent substantially adopting the closure analysis she had done earlier. The Notice of Intent concluded through findings of fact and conclusions of law that the application to close the crossing at Landon Avenue met the requirements of the Florida Administrative Code criteria. In summary, Bordelon found that the Crossing was located on a blind curve, was an elevated crossing with low traffic volume, close to alternatives routes, and was unsafe, unnecessary, and redundant. The closure of the Crossing effectuates DOT’s policy of promoting improved safety at railroad crossings by eliminating chances where a train and car can collide. Landon Avenue is located in the northeast part of the San Marco neighborhood across the St. Johns River from Jacksonville’s downtown in the core of the original city area. Jacksonville’s public works department maintains Landon Avenue. On both sides of the Crossing, Landon Avenue is a two-lane road with no sidewalks and would not meet Jacksonville’s construction standards if it were built today. Landon Avenue is a narrow (20 feet wide) city street that begins at Kings Avenue and runs west past the north-south streets of Faragut Place, Dewey Place and Perry Place, all of which have direct access to Atlantic Boulevard. Landon Avenue makes a southwesterly turn and then crosses two railroad tracks. On the western side of the railroad tracks Landon Avenue passes Arcadia Place, Minerva Avenue (a one-way south street), Thacker Avenue (a one-way north street) all with access to and from Atlantic Boulevard. Landon Avenue continues west and runs through Hendricks Avenue and ends at River Road. G. Rex Nicholson, qualified as an expert witness in forensic engineering, rail safety and design, as well as highway safety and design, agreed with DOT’s rail specialist Jan Bordelon and opined that the Crossing is unsafe, unnecessary and redundant because it is located on a residential street, has low traffic volume, is a non-necessity for travel, and is relatively close to alternatives routes. He indicated that the first step in the analysis of a crossing closure is whether a grade separation (bridge for either automobiles or trains) is feasible. In this instance, such an alternative is not available. Additionally, active safety measures of four- quadrant gates could not be installed at Landon Avenue due to the need for the installation of a non-mountable median and the lack of right-of-way. The expert testimony of Nicholson that grade separation is not feasible, and that only way to improve safety at the Crossing is to proceed with closure, is un- rebutted. Nicholson’s testimony further establishes that Landon Avenue is also a safety risk because street parking narrows the 20-foot wide Landon Avenue. After safety, the second applicable criterion is the need for traffic. Testimony and data indicates that the necessity for vehicle traffic on Landon Avenue is minimal. There is an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 1473 vehicles a day that use the crossing. Another study by DOT approximates the Average Daily Traffic to be 1841. These are both considered low traffic counts. It is rare for residents of Landon Avenue to have a destination on the immediate other side of the crossing. The main travel use for Landon Avenue is as a “cut through” by non- residents to more distant areas and to beat train traffic. The third applicable criterion to Landon Avenue is whether the closing constitutes an excessive restriction to the transportation of emergency type vehicles. Nicholson and Bordelon found that closing Landon Avenue would not create an excessive restriction to emergency type vehicles. Landon Avenue is a tree-lined, residential street only 20 feet wide with a blind turn as the street approaches the track from the East. It is not a main road. Residents park in the street, and Jacksonville has proposed traffic-calming devices on the street. Landon Avenue is not a road that is conducive to emergency type vehicles. For the same reasons the road is unsafe for speeding impatient motorists, it is unsafe for an emergency vehicle cut-through. As the majority of the Petitioner’s case against closure revolved around the restriction to emergency vehicles, that issue is further addressed below. The next applicable criterion for closure is the approach of the road to the Crossing. The design of the road approach of Landon Avenue creates a safety hazard. As Landon Avenue approaches the track heading west, from Kings Road, the road turns to the southwest immediately before the Crossing to create a blind corner where vehicles are unable to see an approaching train. As Landon Avenue approaches the crossing heading east, from Hendricks Avenue, the view of the tracks to the north is obstructed by a building and plants. These obstructions make it very difficult for a speeding motorist to see an approaching train. The Crossing at Landon Avenue meets DOT and FRA initiatives for closure. It is not an arterial road, is used by high risk motorists, and is a safety risk for train-car collisions. Closure of the Crossing will effectuate the policy of improved safety at railroad crossings by eliminating the chance for train and car collisions. The Crossing is a public at-grade railroad crossing, designated by DOT as Crossing No. 271815X. It consists of two mainline tracks, a northbound mainline and southbound mainline that transport approximately 26 trains a day through the Crossing. In addition to FEC, Norfolk Southern Railway and CSX, also both class one railroads, operate trains over the Crossing. Present signalization at the Crossing consists of cantilevered flashing lights and gates; and reflective cross bucks. Safety is the first criterion in closure analysis. The Crossing is located at Railroad Mile Post 1.45, just south of a banked curve in the double tracks that makes it a “blind turn” for the conductor and engineer of a southbound train. Jerry Hall, Sr., FEC’s director of claims, narrated a video in evidence in this proceeding that further corroborates the train operators’ vantage point and demonstrates how the combination of double tracks and lack of site distance in the super-elevated banked curve create a safety hazard at the Crossing. One accident occurred at the Crossing when a train collided with a car, even though the standard cross bucks, lights and bells were operating. The train’s headlight was working and on, the train’s bell was working and the proper whistle signals were blown at the time of the accident; however, the train could not stop in time. The curve in the tracks delays the time a train operator has to avoid a collision with a car at the Crossing. Over 50 percent of train-car collisions result from cars avoiding passive devices and crossing tracks regardless. Accidents at railroad crossings often occur because the road hump over the track serves as a launching ramp for thrill seekers traveling through such intersections with trains at a high speed. This specifically occurs because a speeding automobile’s front wheels lift off the ground and the vehicle continues in the direction it was last going. When motorists sue over accidents in these situations, it is the municipalities or governmental entities with jurisdiction over the road that are usually held responsible. The Crossing is a perfect candidate for this type of accident. Further, the Crossing is a present safety concern for residents of Landon Avenue because it is used by cars and motorcycles as a ramp to “get air” in conjunction with such motorists speeding through the neighborhood to avoid traffic from other Jacksonville streets caused frequently by trains at other nearby intersections. In this regard, Residents saw a filming crew documenting motorcycles jumping the Crossing. They also have witnessed some individuals turn their bikes and vehicles around and repeatedly jump the Crossing. In addition to the accident noted above, Landon Avenue residents testified that there have been several near-miss incidents at the Crossing, including an unreported accident in which a speeding car hit a Landon Avenue girl. The next criterion in the closure analysis is whether there are alternative routes available. The Crossing is located in a residential area near six crossings within one mile of track. The next crossing to the north is located at 1/4 of a mile at four-lane Hendricks Avenue and the next crossing to the south is 1/5th of a mile or 900 feet at four-lane Atlantic Boulevard. These main artery roads, along with Kings Road, allow for easy access to both sides of the Crossing. Closure of the Crossing would disperse traffic onto three different roads: Atlantic Boulevard, Hendricks Avenue and Kings Road. Regardless of the index ratings for these roads, DOT’s goal of eliminating the interaction of vehicular traffic with rail traffic would be accomplished. Hendricks Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard are both four-lane main artery roads. These are safer roads, with non-elevated crossings, that have good sight distance for both train operators and motorists. Motorists do not go around the gates at a four-lane road as often as they do on a two-lane residential street. It would enhance safety to have traffic crossing the railroad tracks at Hendricks Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard rather than at Landon. Additionally, traffic safety would be enhanced by diversion of traffic to Hendricks Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard, thus eliminating one place where a vehicle and a train can try to occupy the same space at the same time and lessening the probability of a collision; logic shared, incidentally, with the United States Federal Government program named “Gradec,” that supports traffic safety enhancement through closure of rail crossings. The next criterion in the closure analysis examines how the closure would affect rail operations and expenses. The closure of the Crossing would decrease operating expenses for FEC and Jacksonville. The cost of maintaining the signal equipment and proper maintenance of the crossing would be avoided. The substantial savings realized by Jacksonville would include savings of $70,000.00 due to rehabilitation of the Crossing that is necessary every six or seven years. Further, FEC and Jacksonville liability and the associated litigation costs exposure would diminish. A criterion in the closure analysis examines the design of the crossing and the road approach. As previously noted, the design of the Crossing and road approach creates an unsafe condition because of the super-elevated nature of the tracks, and the Crossing. There are gouge marks in the pavement at the point of street and rail intersection at the Crossing where the undercarriages of vehicles have scraped against the pavement due to the elevation from the grade of Landon Avenue to the elevated area of the track location. To eliminate the elevated nature of the Crossing, the road approach would have to be raised to the level of the Crossing. Since the rail tracks are banked at a “super-elevated curve” this would be a difficult task. The next criterion examines the presence of multiple tracks and its effect on operations. The presence of multiple tracks and their effect on the railroad and highway operations increase the safety risk at the Crossing. Testimony of Landon Avenue residents and the FEC Claims Director establish that motorists go around the gates at the Crossing. Motorists expect that when one train passes the gates will immediately lift up and allow their vehicles to cross. When two tracks are involved, impatient motorists often misunderstand that there can be two trains coming from different directions at almost the same time. This is especially true where there is a blind corner and two quadrant gates. An impatient driver, unaware of the double track, may easily go around the gate and be caught off guard by the second train. Double tracks also increase the risk of accidents because the train operator of a several ton train doing 25 miles per hour on the southbound mainline has only 457 to 522 feet to avoid a collision with an impatient driver at the Crossing. This is not enough time to stop a locomotive engine, or a train. Closing the Crossing would save the railroad and Jacksonville operating expenses of maintaining the railroad while enhancing safety and achieving DOT’s goal of reducing the probability of a train-automobile collision. In 2000, McLaughlin inquired with DOT about closing the Crossing. He then consulted with Jacksonville. Jacksonville set up a formal meeting with the Lorin Mock, Jacksonville Fire Department; Jim Suber, Jacksonville Police Department; and the Jacksonville councilman who was the district representative at that time. At that meeting, the Jacksonville professional representatives acknowledged that there were no major problems with the closure of the crossing. The councilman at the time did not follow up on sending out letters to request community input. In July 2002, after a period of inactivity regarding the Crossing’s closure and after discovering DOT had authority to close the Crossing, McLaughlin filed an application with DOT for closure. City officials had no problem with closure of the Crossing, and the School Board Chairperson had no difficulty with such closure. A Stipulation of Parties for the closure of the Crossing was drafted and introduced to the City Council by Councilman Art Shad. The proposal was discussed at length before the City Council’s Transportation Committee, which Bordelon attended on behalf of DOT. The legislation to close the Crossing was then submitted to the City Council, but before a vote could be obtained the legislation was withdrawn and Jacksonville decided to oppose the closure. As established by testimony of the Director of Public Works, the withdrawal of the Stipulation of Parties was based on politics, not on any factual findings or meaningful opposition from any Jacksonville professional employee. Considering that a school bus is not an “emergency response type vehicle” the closure analysis regarding the bus goes to the criteria of safety, alternative routes, and effect on operations. There are 14 buses in the morning that come to Landon Middle School, and 16 buses in the afternoon that come to the school. These buses could use Arcadia Place or Hendricks Avenue or some other combination to cross the tracks and exit and enter the school. Additionally, buses stack up on Landon Avenue while waiting for the children which could possibly result in a train-school bus collision which, as established by testimony of David Solomon, an employee of the Duval County School, would be “the worst nightmare an organization can have.” The Duval County School Board had previously addressed the closure of the Crossing and indicated approval prior to Jacksonville’s reversal and decision to oppose that action. Kris Barnes, the Duval County School Board Chair, wrote an October 27, 2003, letter to Ms. Bordelon stating on behalf of the School Board that, after having spoken with the Landon Middle School principal and the Duval County School Board Safety Department, there would be no problem with the closing of the Crossing. There are easily accessible alternative routes that would not disrupt the school or school bus operations and would result in a significant enhancement in safety. Nicholson’s un-rebutted expert testimony concluded that if Jacksonville were applying to install a new crossing at Landon Avenue it would not meet the criteria for an opening, which contains six of the seven criteria for closure. The seventh criterion is whether the closure would cause an excessive restriction to emergency type vehicles. Jacksonville presented testimony, but no data, regarding the fire and rescue vehicles using the crossing. DOT applies the word “excessive restriction” in its rule to mean an excessive restriction for travel. Bordelon’s analysis concluded that the ambulances and other vehicles could easily use the alternative non elevated crossings at Hendricks and Atlantic without being excessively restricted from traveling to an emergency. In processing McLaughlin’s application for closure, Bordelon conducted an independent review of the distance and first response times by fire and emergency vehicles to the Crossing. Bordelon found that fire station 12 and fire station 13 were very close to the Crossing and could easily be reached within the time limit goal of four to six minutes. Since the Landon Avenue/ San Marco area is close to downtown Jacksonville, there is overlapping fire and rescue coverage from fire stations 12 and 13. Using the Atlantic Boulevard railroad crossing, fire station 13 is approximately 0.6 miles from the 1700 block of Landon Avenue. Using the Atlantic Boulevard railroad crossing, fire station 12 is approximately 1.5 miles from the 1500 block of Landon Avenue. The alternative routes that a fire/rescue response from station 13 would have to take to avoid the Crossing are minimal, or approximately an additional fourteenth (.14) of a mile. The alternative routes that a fire/rescue response from station 12 would have to take to avoid the Crossing are minimal, or approximately an additional tenth (.10) of a mile. Jacksonville’s Fire Chief Lorin Mock testified that the there “would be no issue at all in the crossing closure” if it were involved with fire responses using the Atlantic Avenue crossing instead of the Crossing. The average response time from either of these stations to the Crossing is 3.9 minutes. The goal average response time by the Jacksonville Fire Department is six minutes. The response time is calculated from the time a call is made to the time the emergency vehicle arrives on the scene and includes the 911 call and response. Chief Mock and the Jacksonville Fire Department oppose any closure of a railroad crossing, regardless of the safety need for the closure. In the words of Chief Mock, rail crossings are a “string of pearls” that the fire department uses to cross the railroad tracks and the more opportunities to cross the better. He acknowledged that he was looking at the definition from an emergency response standpoint. Per Nicholson’s un-rebutted expert testimony, there is no appreciable difference in response times and distances and no excessive restriction to the transportation of emergency vehicles. Chief Mock’s acknowledgement that the residents of Landon Avenue have “pretty good” overlapping fire coverage because the spacing of fire stations are closer in the core city area, and fire hydrants are available on both sides of the track serves to corroborate this determination. The closure would not result in excessive restriction to the transportation of emergency vehicles.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the requested permit for closure of Department of Transportation Crossing No. 271815X in Jacksonville, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 5th day of August, 2005. 1/ John F. Kennedy
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted for an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Live Oak, Perry and South Georgia Railway Company Mile Post 1688 feet east of Mile Post 40.
Findings Of Fact Proper notice was given the parties and the hearing was delayed for thirty (30) minutes after time of notice in the event that the Respondent desired to make an appearance but was unavoidably detained. State Road 20 was relocated so that the subject crossing is necessary to the straightening and the realignment of the existing road. The average daily traffic is estimated to be 3,600 for the year 1976 and to be 4,800 in ten (10) years. The railroad is a single line trackage and is shown by the inventory to carry four (4) trains per day at 10 m.p.h. The tracks serve a local paper mill in Foley, Florida. An agreement has been worked out between the Department of Transportation and the Respondent railroad. The agreement provides for the protection and signalization at the location of the subject crossing and provides for the funding of the project. The prior or present crossing in this vicinity on State Road 20 will be open and in operation approximately 600 feet from the proposed crossing. Both crossings will have flashing lights and the existing crossing will carry primarily local traffic coming out of the county grade road. The new crossing will bear most of the traffic. The Respondent railroad is in agreement with the opening of the crossing; the Department of Transportation is in agreement that the additional crossing be permitted; the parties agree that the signalization shall be cantilevered flashing lights.
Recommendation Grant the permit to open the crossing. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. R. A. Kelso, Chief Engineer Design & Construction Southern Railway Company (Live Oak, Perry and South Georgia Railway Company) 99 Spring Street, South West Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend that the application of the Petitioner-Applicant for the subject railroad crossing at Northwest 74th Avenue, between 74th and 77th Streets in the City of Medley, Florida, be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Lubow, Esquire City Attorney of Medley, Florida 819 Dupont Plaza Center Miami, Florida 33131 Phillip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Humes, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Respondent Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084
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 =================================================================
