The Issue Whether a permit should be granted for an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Live Oak, Perry and South Georgia Railway Company Mile Post 1688 feet east of Mile Post 40.
Findings Of Fact Proper notice was given the parties and the hearing was delayed for thirty (30) minutes after time of notice in the event that the Respondent desired to make an appearance but was unavoidably detained. State Road 20 was relocated so that the subject crossing is necessary to the straightening and the realignment of the existing road. The average daily traffic is estimated to be 3,600 for the year 1976 and to be 4,800 in ten (10) years. The railroad is a single line trackage and is shown by the inventory to carry four (4) trains per day at 10 m.p.h. The tracks serve a local paper mill in Foley, Florida. An agreement has been worked out between the Department of Transportation and the Respondent railroad. The agreement provides for the protection and signalization at the location of the subject crossing and provides for the funding of the project. The prior or present crossing in this vicinity on State Road 20 will be open and in operation approximately 600 feet from the proposed crossing. Both crossings will have flashing lights and the existing crossing will carry primarily local traffic coming out of the county grade road. The new crossing will bear most of the traffic. The Respondent railroad is in agreement with the opening of the crossing; the Department of Transportation is in agreement that the additional crossing be permitted; the parties agree that the signalization shall be cantilevered flashing lights.
Recommendation Grant the permit to open the crossing. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. R. A. Kelso, Chief Engineer Design & Construction Southern Railway Company (Live Oak, Perry and South Georgia Railway Company) 99 Spring Street, South West Atlanta, Georgia 30303
The Issue The standards for opening an at-grade railroad crossing are set forth in Rule 14-46.03(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: (a) Opening Public Grade Crossings - The foremost criteria in the opening of grade crossings is the necessity, convenience and safety of rail and vehicle traffic. Existing routes should be utilized where practical. Damage to the railroad company's operation and railroad safety consideration must be a factor in permitting a new grade crossing. ... The issues set out above and agreed to by the parties are: Necessity; Convenience (to the public); Safety to railroad and vehicular traffic; and Whether existing routes should be utilized.
Findings Of Fact Necessity The City's application for the proposed public rail crossing within the city limits would connect Buffalo Road with Marina Road over the FEC's mainline track from Jacksonville to Miami, Florida. Buffalo and Marina Roads meet at right angles at the railroad track, with Marina Road running north and south parallel to and east of the railroad track and Buffalo Road running east and west to the west of the railroad track. The proposed crossing would tie the ends of these two streets together making a loop to and from US Highway 1, a major arterial route running north and south. Buffalo and Marina Roads provide access to all property, businesses and activities located along them within this area. These primary activities include two public recreational parks, a public marina, a restaurant, and a boat building works located in that order northward along Marina Road; and the primary activities on Buffalo Road are the City's sewage treatment plant and another portion of the boat building works, both of which are located at the east end of Buffalo Road. The proposed crossing is not required to obtain access to any location along these roads which would otherwise be landlocked. It is only approximately 1.7 miles from one side of the railroad track to the other side by the existing route; however, few members of the general public would make such a trip because of the activities located by the railroad tracks. Most of the projected traffic over the proposed crossing would be through traffic exiting or entering the Marina Road recreational area. This traffic would travel to US Highway 1 via Marina Road and Buffalo Road. The distance from the existing exit at Marina Road and US Highway 1 to the Buffalo Road and US Highway 1 intersection over the proposed route is 0.9 of a mile, almost the exact distance of the existing route. While the crossing would have great utility to the boat works, it is not necessary to the company's operations. Similarly, the proposed crossing would create another route to the recreational area for ambulances from the hospital located several blocks north of the Buffalo Road/US Highway 1 intersection. This route via the proposed crossing would not shorten the trip appreciably and certainly is not necessary. It would be operationally better for the fire department to have two accesses into the industrial area located at the ends of Buffalo and Marina Roads; however, it is not necessary for the fire department to have two routes, as is demonstrated by their successful responses to fires at both portions of the boat works. In summary, the distances involved and the available access to activities and businesses along Buffalo and Marina Roads do not sustain a finding that the proposed crossing is necessary. Convenience Many of the facts above, while not establishing a necessity for the proposed crossing, do establish that the crossing would be convenient. Two accesses into the activities located along both roads would be convenient to regular traffic and ambulances. It would be operationally desirable for the fire department to be able to approach a fire along these two roads from two directions. The proposed crossing would provide almost direct access between the two portions of the boat works now separated by the track. The development of the expanded recreational facilities along Marina Road will increase traffic volume, and at the periods of highest use, for example during softball tournaments, there is already congestion of traffic exiting Marina Road onto US Highway 1. However, the existing Marina Roads US Highway 1 intersection has a level of service A, or no traffic congestion during normal peak use. Further, the intersection would have no less than a level of service C rating with traffic volumes projected after full development of the recreational facilities. Level of service C is the optimum level of service from a planning standpoint considering cost effectiveness. Level of service C would be maintained with projected traffic volumes in spite of the intersection's configuration and location on a banked curve on the incline of the US Highway 1 overpass over the FEC's tracks. This configuration is not the safest possible; however, plans exist to move the Marina Road/US Highway 1 intersection south several hundred feet. This will greatly improve the configuration of this intersection and eliminate the safety problems of the existing intersection. When budgeted and completed this will make this intersection much safer than it is currently. As stated above in relationship to the issue of necessity, the majority of the traffic over the proposed crossing would be exiting or entering the Marina Road recreational complex. A comparison of the distances involved shows that traffic traveling from the Marina Road intersection to the Buffalo Road intersection over the existing route is only slightly inconvenienced. Safety There are two primary safety considerations: Railroad traffic safety and vehicular traffic safety. Railroad Safety: There is an average of 28 trains daily over the FEC's mainline track between Jacksonville and Miami, Florida, at the site of the proposed crossing. The proposed crossing is located on a curve between two curves. The characteristics of the curve north of the proposed crossing prevent a southbound train's crew from observing the actual crossing until the train is 1,200 feet from the crossing site. Due to vegetation along the roadways, the train crew must be almost at the crossing before they can see approaching vehicular traffic. The southbound trains travel at a speed of 48 miles per hour at the site of the proposed crossing and could not stop for an obstacle on the track from the point of initial observation. The characteristics of the curve south of the proposed crossing prevent the engineer of a northbound train from observing the crossing until very close to the crossing. Northbound trains travel at a speed of 35 miles per hour and would encounter great difficulty in stopping within the distance they would first observe an obstacle on the track. Vegetation and buildings restrict the northbound train crews observation of the vehicular approaches along Buffalo Road. This vegetation also restricts a driver's visibility of trains approaching from both the north and the south in three of four quadrants around the crossing. The restricted visibility makes train and vehicular traffic dependent upon warning signals and crossing protection devices. These devices suffer vandalism which can make them inoperable. The isolated location of the crossing would permit vandalism, as indicated by the damage to the dead end sign at the end of Buffalo Road observed during the view of the site. The FEC's data indicates that crossing warning devices do not eliminate crossing accidents. The FEC increased the number of protected crossings from 373 in 1976 to 510 in 1980, while the number of accidents at such crossings increased from 22 in 1976 to 42 in 1979. Such devices are not a substitute for good crossing layout and visibility. The dangers of this proposed crossing would place a continuing strain on train crews, and the only means of providing the margin of safety necessary is to slow the train's speed. This would adversely affect rail operations. Vehicular Safety: The layout of the proposed crossing creates hazards to vehicular traffic. To negotiate the crossing, north and southbound traffic would have to make a sharp 90-degree turn. At the proposed crossing the two roads have different widths and different elevations, making vehicle control and observation over the crossing's crest difficult. In addition Buffalo Road shifts its alignment to the left just prior to the crossing site. A southbound vehicle traveling east on Buffalo Road toward the crossing would have to move left just prior to the point where the road would widen and then make a right turn over the crossing. Failure to move left will cause a vehicle to hit the right cantilever standard, and failure to make the right turn will cause the vehicle to leave the roadway. The lack of room east of the track requires northbound traffic to approach the crossing parallel to the track and then make a 90-degree turn to cross the track. Again, the crossing's crest poses an obstacle to visibility of approaching traffic. The approach speeds for north and southbound traffic are extremely high for the proposed curve. Even with lower posted speed limits the isolation and road conditions will permit speeding along both roads. All of these factors raise the possibility of loss of control, which may result in vehicles leaving the traveled way and plunging into low areas surrounding the roads. Vehicular traffic which fails to make the curve could even plunge into the railroad right-of-way. Problems with this sharp curve are compounded by the inability to bank the road's curve properly and still maintain clearance for rail traffic. There are multiple safety problems with the proposed crossing, which create extremely hazardous conditions for vehicular traffic without consideration of the fact that the driver must also be alert for trains. The dangers at the existing intersection of Marina Road and US Highway 1 are small compared to those of the proposed crossing. In summary, the proposed crossing will expose the public to substantially greater dangers than those of the existing route. Use of the Existing Crossing There is an elevated, grade-separated crossing on US Highway 1 just south and slightly west of the proposed crossing. This provides class A service, the highest level of service possible, to vehicular traffic moving north and south on US Highway 1, or the same traffic which would use the proposed crossing. The US Highway 1 overpass, which is a four-lane major arterial road, will meet the projected traffic volumes until the year 2000. This existing crossing eliminates a railroad/vehicular traffic conflict point entirely. The US Highway 1 overpass provides the safest means of crossing the FEC's track for both rail and vehicular traffic at no appreciable inconvenience.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency head deny the application to open an at-grade crossing at Buffalo Road. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1981, 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 11th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Appendix I (map) Appendix II (exhibits) Dwight W. Severs, Esquire 509 Palm Avenue Post Office Box 669 Titusville, Florida 32780 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John W. Humes, Jr., Esquire Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 APPENDIX II LIST OF EXHIBITS City of Titusville (Petitioner) Traffic analysis report prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 1980 arterial street plan Sand Point Park plan Revision to Sand Point Park plan Street map of the City of Titusville Aerial photograph initialed by the parties Ten photographs of proposed crossing and surrounding area initialed by the parties Construction plans for crossing Assessor's map Traffic analysis prepared by Tipton & Associates, Inc. Nineteen photographs initialed by the parties Composite 12 photographs of proposed crossing Zoning Map of City of Titusville Commercial Map of Greater Titusville with residences of players indicated Memorandum - Orr to Buschman regarding Accident Record, Marina Road/US Highway 1 Kimley-Horn Traffic Study, Marina Road/US Highway 1 without crossing Kimley-Horn Traffic Study, Marina Road/US Highway 1 and Buffalo Road/US Highway 1 with crossing Florida East Coast Railway Company (Respondent) Memorandum - File from Fernandez regarding Buffalo Road Crossing Manual of Uniform Standards, Department of Transportation Extract from Titusville Ordinance Data for number of at-grade crossings and types of devices Appendix II - Page 1 Number of Crossing Accidents by Type of Device Damage to Crossing Devices Not received Not received Profer - Affidavit of Fondren regarding materials in proposed crossing
Recommendation Close existing railroad crossing at Citrus Springs Boulevard and Seaboard Coastline Mile-post 763. DONE and ORDERED this 8th 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: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 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 James L. Shroads, Esquire 2350 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation should issue a permit for the installation of a public at-grade railroad crossing in the vicinity of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad track, 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 on the alignment of Baya Avenue, East of Lake City, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony of witnesses for the petitioner and the arguments of counsel and those witnesses appearing for the Department of Transportation on the issues and considering the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, is duly authorized to establish and maintain a primary system of highways within the boundaries of the State of Florida. The Petitioner has heretofore filed an application with the appropriate division of the Department of Transportation of the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 330.21 Florida Statutes, for Permission to establish a graded railroad crossing for Baya Avenue (U.S. 90) within the city limits of Lake City, Florida on the state primary highway system proposed to intersect the Respondent Railroad's tracks approximately 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad. The Respondent Railroad Company did not appear although the record shows that Notice of Hearing was properly given and that plans of the project and proposed signalization were duly sent by letter dated October 8, 1975. There was uncontroverted testimony by Mr. Terry Crews, Assistant District Utilities Engineer for the Petitioner that Mr. R. A. Kelso, Chief Engineer, Design and Construction, Southern Railway System had discussed a portion of the project by telephone with Mr. Crews and no objections were raised. No letters of objection were filed. The Petitioner is in the process of constructing a new four-lane vehicular thoroughfare. This construction is necessary in the rerouting of vehicular traffic through Lake City, Florida (U.S. 90). As a part of this construction it is necessary to cross the railroad and State Road 100 which lie adjacent to each other. It will be a four-lane divided highway with a painted median, with curbs and gutters in the vicinity of the crossing. At the time of construction, the railroad will consist of single-line trackage that carries two (2) trains per day at speeds of approximately 20 miles per hour. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 vehicles per day will use this facility by 1984. Studies conducted by Department of Transportation personnel reveal that the crossing should be signalized with cantilevered flashing lights, ringing bells and pavement markings in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This signalization should be interconnected with vehicle traffic signalization located at State Road 100 to control vehicular traffic at the highway crossing as well as the railroad crossing. The applicant agrees to install and maintain such signalization. The Hearing officer further finds: The proposed crossing is necessary and desirable; The signalization is adequate as planned, to protect the public; The Petitioner needs the crossing; The Respondent has not opposed the crossing; The Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, will Install and maintain the crossing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Deltona Corporation, is managing a development known as Rotonda owned by Cape Cave Corporation and desires to open two at-grade railroad crossings from this development to SR 771, the major road providing access to and from the development. Both of these crossings were previously approved by the railroad and the county agreed to maintain the crossings once installed. However Petitioner desires to relocate the crossing previously existing at Rotonda Boulevard 50 feet to the north and change Ingram Boulevard crossing to a four lane road. The proposed crossing at Ingram Boulevard is some 2300 feet north of Rotonda Boulevard. The hurricane evacuation route for the people in the area to SR 771 is over Rotonda Boulevard. Most of the lots in the Rotonda development have been sold and the developer is not in the process of installing the streets. It is Petitioner's position that the additional crossing at Ingram Boulevard is needed to provide egress for the Rotonda residents when the other crossings congested with hurricane evacuation traffic. Neither of the roads involved approach the railroad at a right angle. Proceeding northeast Rotonda Boulevard parallels the railroad until just before reaching the point of crossing when Rotonda Boulevard turns 60 degrees to 70 degrees to the right. The track is then crossed at an angle of some 30 degrees from normal. The approach at Ingram Boulevard turns about 30 degrees to the right when proceeding eastward and the road then crosses the track nearly normal thereto. Additionally Antilla Drive joins Rotonda Boulevard at the point Rotonda turns right to cross the track thus creating a Y intersection immediately before the crossing. The view of the crossing at Rotonda Boulevard East is obstructed to some extent by vegetation and the angle of the crossing further impedes the safety features of this crossing. The approach to the Ingram boulevard crossing from SR 771 is nearly normal and from the development the angle is about 30 degrees. Accordingly the Ingram crossing, assuring proper signaling devices are installed, would provide the safer crossing. The SAL track here involved is infrequently used, with only one or two trains per day and the train speed is restricted to slow. Respondent, in regulating the crossings, prefers to have adjacent crossings of a track separated by considerably greater distances than one-half mile.
Findings Of Fact Polk County proposes to relocate Hunt Brothers Road where it crosses the Seaboard Coastline Railroad near Highland Park some 350 feet to the north and to remove the existing roadway approach to the crossing. Hunt Brothers Road is a two lane highway 24 feet wide. The existing road has no signalling devices or warning lights installed other than a railroad crossing sign. Polk County proposes to put back-to-back flashing lights on each side of the road at the relocated crossing. However, the county has no objection to installing whatever signal devices are required at this crossing. The approach to the proposed crossing provides greater safety than exists at the old crossing. The new road exits a curve to the right 250 feet from the tracks. No other obstruction exists at this crossing, however, a second parallel track exists on which cars could be parked within 200 feet of the road. From the evidence adduced this appears to be a relatively short siding and not a track on which trains move. One northbound and one southbound train moves over this track daily. No evidence was presented that stanchions for flashing lights could not be located within 12 feet of the edge of the roadway. There is no record of any accident at the existing crossing and the safety factor of the crossing was not computed and presented at the hearing. The additional initial cost of installing cantilevered flashing lights and gates over the cost of installing roadside flashing lights is some $50,000. No cost benefit ratio or study showing the benefits to be obtained with use of the more expensive system was presented. The principal reason for the District Safety Engineer's recommendation for cantilevered flashing lights and gates was that as the driver of a car negotiated the curve approaching the track his eyes would of necessity be focused on the center line of the road and would better see lights located over the center of the road. He acknowledged however that if lights were on both sides of the road the field of vision of a driver looking straight ahead as he exited the curve would include a light on the left-hand side of the road before one in the middle of the road.
The Issue Granting or denial of a permit to open a public at-grade railroad crossing as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners desired to be granted a permit for the opening of a public at-grade railroad crossing in connection with the construction of a new four-lane vehicular facility. The alignment of the facility was determined after several alternate studies had been made. Its purpose is to provide a means to move traffic from the Pensacola Bay Bridge through the historical district of Pensacola and on to the west side of the City near Barrancas Avenue. To utilize this alignment, it is necessary to cross a spur track of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company. Safety studies conducted on the basis of accepted safety criterion reveal that the installation and maintenance of automatically-operated cantilevered flashing lights and gates in addition to standard pavement markings, crossbucks and discs would be necessary to protect the safety of both rail and vehicular traffic. The Petitioners agreed to bear the expenses of the installation of such signalization. The permit should be granted.
Recommendation The permit shall be granted for the opening of the subject crossing conditioned upon the installation and maintenance of signalization as set forth in the facts. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 G. S. Burleson, Sr. Asst. State Utility Engr. (RRs) Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 M. H. Smith, Esquire Attorney for Louisville-Nashville Railroad Company P. O. Box 1198 Louisville, Ky. 40201 County Attorney Escambia County County Courthouse Pensacola, Florida
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 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue and Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 104 + 172' in Ormond Beach, Florida should be closed.
Findings Of Fact By application the Florida East Coast Railway Company seeks a permit to close an existing at-grade public railroad crossing located in Volusia County, Florida, at Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 104 + 172' in the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue. There exists a standard cross buck sign or fixed sign at the subject crossing and there is a vehicular stop sign on each side of the crossing. There is a total of sixteen freight rail movements and a total of two local freight rail movements crossing each day. In addition to these scheduled moves there are a few unscheduled movements such as work trains. The speed limit for this area is 35 m.p.h. A 24-hour traffic survey was set up on Lincoln Avenue just west of the railroad-tracks where the number of vehicles counted was 567. The 24-hour period started at 11:00 a.m. on November 18, 1975, and continued until 11:00 a.m. on November 19, 1975. There is no sight problem from south to north but from north to south there is a curve that bears to the right coming into Lincoln Avenue which gives a railroad sight problem. For vehicles there is a sight problem going from west to east, but no sight problem going from east to west. There have been four documented accidents at the crossing: one in 1962, one in 1965, and two in 1973. There has been expansion of the city to the areas particularly west of the railroad tracks and north of the crossing at State Road Lincoln Avenue is the only crossing between State Road 40 and State Road 5A. It is approximately 1.5 miles. There is a need for a railroad crossing in the area as an alternate to the crossing on State Road 40. The railroad suggests bells, flashing lights and gates, in the event this application to close is not permitted. The Department of Transportation recommends flashing lights and bells, suggesting that gates would be better, but such signalization adequate. The City did not recommend a type of signalization but did recommend that the permit to close be denied. The Hearing Officer further finds: The permit should be denied inasmuch as there is a need for the crossing; The crossing should be signalized to make it less hazardess; Signalization without gates is adequate.
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.
