Recommendation Dismiss the application to open a public at-grade crossing at Country Club Boulevard in the Citrus Springs Community in Citrus County, Florida without prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Shroads, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 George L. Waas, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Gordan S. Burleson, Sr. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Livingston, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida
The Issue Whether an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Southwest 5th Avenue and 2,625 feet north of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Foot 731 in Williston should be opened.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, City of Williston, applied for a permit to construct an at-grade railroad crossing 2,625 feet north of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Post SR-731 and Southwest Fifth Avenue, if extended, in the City of Williston for the purpose of providing access from an undeveloped but intended residential area of the City. There are two (2) Public at-grade crossings in the area. One is located 1,360 feet north of proposed crossing at Southwest First Avenue and one is located 625 feet south of the proposed crossing at Southwest Seventh Avenue. The subject railroad track is a lead track used for providing service to railroad custoners located north of proposed crossing in the City of Williston. Approximately six (6) train movements occur each week and the maximum speed is 25 miles per hour. There is a heavy stand of trees in the Southwest quadrant of the proposed crossing. Southwest First Avenue runs east and west to the south of the existing Williston High School and north of an elementary school and, although there have been discussions as to whether the street should be abandoned if the proposed road Southwest Fifth Avenue is opened, no official action has been taken. There has been no detailed planning by the City as to the following: Where the Southwest Fifth Avenue as proposed should connect to Southeast Fifth Avenue across the proposed railroad crossing; The cost of construction and maintenance of the crossing and the cost of warning devices that might be required at the crossing and the financing of same; What the estimated traffic count would be across the proposed crossing from the hospital that is in the vicinity and from the schools in the vicinity; Whether the railroad company would grant an easement for the crossing across the railroad property; and Whether a road could or should be built paralleling the railroad and connecting with an existing crossing. Is is the further finding of the Hearing Officer: There has been insufficient planning on the part of the Petitioner City of Williston as to the use or hazards in the proposed crossing; There are insufficient fact available to the Hearing Officer to make a determination as to the necessity or the safety of the proposed crossing; and The Florida Department of Transportation recommended that it proposed crossing was opened, the maximum protection should be a minimum of flashing lights, ringing bells, proper signing and pavement markings. No other recommendations were made.
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
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing was entered into evidence and said notice was amended to reflect that the distance of an existing crossing north of the proposed crossing was 2,208' + north rather than 1,500' + north. The application was also changed to reflect that the proposed roadway was to extend the limits of a right of way to 120' instead of 100'. The change would place the mile post at a slightly different location. Upon examination of the area and taking testimony from the three attorneys involved in this hearing, it is the findings of this Hearing Officer that the change in location and the change in the proposed roadway is not of sufficient consequence that the hearing should have been postponed and re- noticed. Inasmuch as the parties directly involved were present, the owners of the railroad were represented, the owners of the Petitioner corporation were represented, there were representatives from the County and from the Florida Department of Transportation. A re-notice with the minor changes in location and in the width of the right of way would have been sent to the same representatives. The Notice of Hearing met the requirements of notice of public hearing. Petitioner Suntree Development Corporation is proposing to construct a connector road between Wickham Road and U.S. 1 approximately 2,208' south of an existing two-lane signalized (warning bells, lights, and gates) road crossing on Pineda Avenue in south Brevard County, Florida. The proposed road is to be four-laned with 120 foot right of way including a 20 foot medium strip. The road would be an access between U.S. 1 and the Suntree Community, a new community on approximately 2,800 acres of land which is predicted to have approximately 35,000 to 40,000 people after total development which is estimated to be completed within a 15 year period. The road would be a limited access with acceleration and deacceleration lines on U.S. 1 with an estimated total anticipated average daily traffic of from 23,000 to 60,000 trips per day. The proposed crossing involves a Type IV cantilevered signalization with bells, flashing lights and gates to be activated by trains. Cost of signalization and maintenance is to be borne by the Suntree Development Corporation. Petitioner is the primary owner of all the lands involved, but does not own all of the right of way needed to construct the crossing. Building is presently limited to a country club, sewage treatment plants, about a mile of roadway and two single family homes under construction and plans for the construction of some forty homes within the next few months. The proposed crossing was approved by the Brevard County Commission with the understanding that the crossing at Pineda Avenue would not be closed. The Florida East Coast Railway track in this area is a single track with 18 through freight trains a day which travel about 60 m.p.h. at the proposed crossing location. Two local freights move at unscheduled times across the railroad tracks. The tracks in the vicinity of the proposed crossing is nearly straight. The Florida East Coast Railway Company owns the right of way over the tracks and opposes the opening of another crossing in such close proximity to the crossing at Pineda Avenue, at this time. Storage capacity or storage area is the area in which cars can stand while awaiting clearance to proceed. The proposed road will contain 1,800' of storage area with 850' on the Wickham Road side and 950' on the U.S. 1 side. Using the average daily traffic figure when the community is developed, as calculated by Petitioner, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 3.28 minutes. Using the average daily traffic figures when the community is developed, as calculated by the Florida Department of Transportation, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 1.27 minutes. The Florida Department of Transportation recommends that an overpass be constructed rather than the at-grade crossing. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Pineda Avenue crossing can serve the vehicular traffic demand at present; Petitioner's plans for development, if realized, will demand another railroad cross- ing to serve the community; The proposed at-grade crossing is in such close proximity to U.S. 1 that it would be hazardous to vehicular traffic on U.S. 1 and the proposed Suntree entry road when the community is developed.
Findings Of Fact Florida West Coast Railroad (FWCR) applied to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to close an "at-grade" railroad crossing at Northwest 5th Street in the City of Newberry, Florida. By date of September 13, 1993, FDOT issued its Intent to Issue Permit (approval of FWCR's closing application) to all interested parties showing a scheduled on-site conference at the crossing location on May 6, 1993. FDOT's intent to approve FWCR's application was not altered subsequent to the opportunity for input by representatives of the City of Newberry at the May 6, 1993 conference and at a public hearing. The City had at least one public official or an official's designee present at both of the foregoing events. The City timely filed its request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. dated October 6, 1994. A CSX railroad track runs roughly northwest to southeast, through the City of Newberry. It effectively bisects the city, west and east. The FWCR railroad track runs roughly northeast to southwest and intersects the CSX track in a rough "X" shape . There are six crossings on the FWCR track and five on the CSX track, all within the city limits. Northwest 5th Street, Newberry, consists of an unimproved dirt right- of-way. The average vehicular traffic count is eleven vehicles per day. The crossing FWCR seeks to close is officially numbered D.O.T./A.A.R. 625898V, also known simply as "898." By the parties' stipulation, it is undisputed that Crossing 898 is within the city limits at Northwest 5th Street in the City of Newberry, Alachua County. It is also stipulated and undisputed that two freight trains traverse the crossing daily at a speed of approximately ten miles per hour; that the crossing is not used by any school buses; and that the only warning devices are "crossbucks." James Sewell, Fire Chief for the City of Newberry, is the coordinator for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) within the city. His department provides basic life support (BLS) in conjunction with advanced life support (ALS) provided by the County of Alachua to city residents under an inter-local agreement. The city's emergency medical equipment and fire truck are kept at the City Fire Department on North Main Street, just north of its intersection with Northwest 3rd Avenue. Northwest 3rd Avenue runs directly west from its intersection with North Main Street, eventually intersecting with Northwest 4th, 5th and 6th Streets. At the intersection of Northwest 3rd Avenue and Northwest 4th Street is a fire hydrant. At the intersection of Northwest 3rd Avenue and Northwest 5th Street is the 898 crossing. Chief Sewell and other city witnesses expressed concern that the closing of Crossing 898 would impede rapid response by ambulances, fire, or other emergency vehicles and would lessen accessibility to the service area denominated "the northwest quadrant," which is becoming more residential. The northwest quadrant is located north of the FWCR track and its crossings 898 and 899 which intersect it. FDOT and FWCR advocated that the city fire and emergency medical vehicles could respond from the Fire Department and go south on Main Street to Central Avenue (SR 26) then west on Central Avenue to Northwest 6th Street and north on Northwest 6th Street across Crossing 899 to reach the northwest quadrant. At the present time they can do that, and they also can turn one block earlier and take NW 5th Street north from Central and across Crossing 898, something they could not do if Crossing 898 is closed. The county vehicles could traverse SR 26 which is also Central Avenue, to Northwest 6th Street and use Crossing 899 to reach the northwest quadrant without having to digress to the Fire Department. At the present time, they can also take Northwest 5th Street to Crossing 898. Although Chief Sewell acknowledged that there was a fairly even distribution of fire hydrants throughout the city, he also testified that Crossing 898 encompasses a primary route for city fire trucks responding to a structural fire because of the hydrant located at 4th Street and 3rd Avenue. He has often had to use Crossing 898 and the hydrant at 4th Street and 3rd Avenue for fire responses and command procedures associated with those fires. As recently as last year, the city experienced a major brush fire in the northwest quadrant with high gusting winds which would have been difficult to contain without utilizing that hydrant. If he had not been able to use Crossing 898, he would have had to go to Northwest 6th Street Crossing No. 899 or 6th Avenue Crossing 622495 a/k/a "495." The 6th Avenue Crossing 495 is north of the FWCR track and Crossings 898 and 899 and intersects the CSX railroad track. Chief Sewell testified that although he could have still strung water lines that far, he would also have had to send his fire truck back to that hydrant, away from the scene of the fire, institute different command procedures which might be less effective, and increase his fire vehicle response time in that area from thirty seconds to roughly two minutes. According to Chief Sewell, Crossing 898 encompasses a primary route for city EMS vehicles and it constitutes the quickest, shortest route to an emergency in the northwest quadrant, especially for a heart attack or stroke victim who should receive care within four minutes of a "911" call. After six to eight minutes, an untreated heart attack or stroke victim can suffer irreversible brain damage. If someone in the northwest quadrant calls "911", the city's EMS vehicle can now respond via 6th Avenue Crossing 495, Northwest 5th Street Crossing 898, or Northwest 6th Street Crossing 899. It was not demonstrated how response via Crossing 495 could be very effective or speedy, however, or how the city emergency vehicles would reach Crossing 495, given its location on the north side of the FWCR tracks unless they used some other crossing too. If 6th Avenue Crossing 495 were blocked, vehicles could use 1st or 2nd Avenues to get to Crossing 898 or 899 now or to get to Crossing 899 if 898 is closed. Crossing 898 at Northwest 5th Street is a primary route, particularly if other crossings are blocked. Blockage of several crossings at once is common when the CSX coal train, which is over a mile in length, stops for ten to fifteen minutes at a time. That train comes through Newberry twice a day and can come through more often. It is possible for Crossings 496 at 2d Avenue, 497 at 1st Avenue, and 498 at Central Avenue on the CSX track to be simultaneously blocked by this train, which effectively blocks both Crossings 898 (Northwest 5th Street) and 899 (Northwest 6th Street) as well. The Mayor has had to break the train to allow emergency vehicles to pass on occasion. There have been no vehicular-train accidents at Northwest 5th Street (898), Northwest 6th Street (899) or Northwest 6th Avenue (495) since 1979. There is only a block between Northwest 5th and 6th Streets in the city. Northwest 6th Street is paved and its crossing 899 is comparatively flat. Crossing 899 also has advanced signage designed to prevent car-train accidents, which Crossing 898 does not. Crossing 898 at Northwest 5th Street is currently "signed" only with crossbucks. Northwest 5th Street is unpaved and Crossing 898 is elevated significantly, both of which conditions may cause vehicular traffic to voluntarily slow to accommodate the jackknifing effect of topping the track. Modern cars may "bottom out" on it. Similar problems may exist for fire trucks and long emergency vehicles. According to Chief Sewell, there is a "standard" that permits emergency vehicles to approach railroad crossings with care, subject to stopping for the protection of firefighters or patients. This means that paved unelevated roads, such as Northwest 6th Street do not necessarily make for quicker response times than dirt roads such as Northwest 5th Street. The Northwest 6th Street crossing (899) is located 465 feet west of the Northwest 5th Street crossing (898) which FWCR seeks to close pursuant to this proceeding. Northwest 6th Street is connected to Northwest 5th Street by roadways on both sides of the railroad. Using Northwest 6th Street Crossing 899 or Northwest 6th Avenue Crossing 495 would increase travel time for the average motorist by approximately 30 seconds even when no crossing is impeded by a train. Trains on the track would be a further (longer time) impediment. Clyde Forbes, on behalf of FWCR, testified that on one occasion a FWCR train derailed and simultaneously cut off Crossing 898 at 5th Street and Crossing 495 at 6th Avenue, but Crossing 899 at 6th Street was still available for entry to the northwest quadrant of the City. Apparently referring to this same incident, Mayor Warmack stated that the derailment occurred between 5th and 6th Streets, closing both Crossings 898 and 899. Although the city did no maintenance with regard to Crossing 898 itself in the eleven years prior to the closing application, Buddy Jeffcoat, City Commissioner in charge of streets and roads, testified that the city recently paid for the area to be surveyed and the road shoulders cleared of underbrush. Residents were required to clear their adjoining property, and the City Commission established a goal of paving Fifth Street and the other two unpaved streets in Newberry within the next two years. Existing funds for such paving have been tentatively allocated. However, this plan for city development may be considered speculative, since the city witnesses testified in terms of city paving and maintenance of the crossing being conditioned upon FWCR agreeing to upgrade the crossing signage. Since crossing signage is partly an FDOT function, there are no guarantees at the present time that the city will pave Northwest 5th Street within two years. No Local Comprehensive Plan was admitted in evidence. Mayor Freddie Warmack testified that the City has allocated funds through S.H.I.P. to develop low-cost housing in the northwest quadrant. Two single-family residences have been built in the northwest quadrant in the last three months. This represents a significant increase in building in the area, considering the size of the City of Newberry. Northwest 5th Street runs into a city-owned park. The park draws children, but there was no expert testimony as to whether or not pedestrian and bike traffic to the park is rendered safer or less safe due to Crossing 898. There was no evidence presented to support a finding that FWCR intends to abandon its track. FDOT's Procedure Manual states that, "The best grade crossing is a closed one. Closing a grade crossing is always the preferred alternative". FDOT personnel echoed this policy in testimony to the effect that the way to eliminate crossing accidents is to eliminate crossings, period. Prior to formulating its notice of intent, FDOT personnel admittedly did not review the City of Newberry's Local Comprehensive Plan, make a study of the City's prospective growth viz a viz Crossing 898, study any potential future changes in railroad traffic or determine specifically whether or not FWCR intended to utilize or abandon the material section of track. However, evidence on these issues was presented at formal hearing as described supra.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the requested permit for closure of D.O.T./A.A.R. 625898V railroad crossing in Newberry, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 93-6023 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). FDOT's PFOF: Accepted Rejected as a proposed fact because it represents a proposed conclusion of law. See, Conclusions of Law. 3-9 Accepted as modified 10 Accepted that this was testified but not dispositive in light of other evidence. See Findings of Fact 16 and 19. 11-12 Accepted but modified for clarity. Rejected in light of other competent evidence. See Finding of Fact 24. Accepted Rejected as a proposed finding of fact because it represents a proposed conclusion of law. See, the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as stated because it is misleading to the evidence as a whole and does not contain a transcript or evidentiary reference. See, Findings of Fact 16, 19 and 22. Rejected as stated because it is misleading to the evidence as a whole and does not contain a transcript or evidentiary reference. See, Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence and because it does not contain a transcript or evidentiary reference. Rejected as a proposed finding of fact because it represents a proposed conclusion of law. See, the Conclusions of Law. City of Newberry's PFOF: Except for mere legal argument, accepted within the findings of fact or covered under "Preliminary Statement." Rejected as subordinate, as mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony, and/or as a proposed conclusion of law. See, Finding of Fact 29. Rejected as a proposed finding of fact because it represents a proposed conclusion of law; See Conclusions of Law. 4-5 Accepted, but unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized. Sentence 1: Rejected in part as not supported by the record as a whole and in part as mere legal argument or subordinate; See, Findings of Fact 3-4. Sentence 2: Accepted. Sentence 3: Accepted. Sentence 4: Accepted. Sentence 5: Accepted as modified to more closely conform to the record as a whole. Sentence 6: Accepted as modified to more closely conform to the record as a whole. Accepted, except that unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized. Testimony that could not be reconciled is covered in Finding of Fact 23. Accepted, except that unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized. Rejected as a proposed finding of fact because it represents a proposed conclusion of law; See Conclusions of Law. Rejected in part and accepted in part as supported in the record. See, all Findings of Fact but particularly Findings of Fact 24-29. Unnecessary. FWCR's PFOF: None filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 S. Scott Walker, Esquire WATSON FOLDS Post Office Box 1070 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 David H. Anderson, Esquire 47 Sheple Lane Groton, Massachusetts 01450
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at grade rail-highway crossing by new roadway construction at Everglades Boulevard-State Road 710- Section 91000-6604, Okeechobee County Parcel 1 (right of way XSO-8).
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail-highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Okeechobee County through its agent Moseley Collins, P. E., County Engineer. The crossing location is southeast of the city of Okeechobee, Florida. The local popular name of the street is Everglades Boulevard. The proposed crossing is across the tracks of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad at Seaboard Coastline milepost 911.93. The crossing would serve a growing subdivision approximately three (3) miles wide and nine (9) miles long, an area in which approximately 3,000 people live. There is one entrance to the subdivision across Highway 441 South. There is a second grade crossing signalized with crossbucks known as the Hazellieff Road crossing. This crossing does not serve the subject subdivision inasmuch as the road dead-ends after crossing the railroad. There are no current plans to buy up the right of way and extend the road at the Hazellieff crossing. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad would prefer that the Applicant extend the road to serve the subject subdivision. The Hazellieff crossing is approximately one-half mile from the proposed crossing, but the Applicant states that the crossing serves only a few families and the Applicant does not own the right of way across the muck-pitted area and has no plans to extend the road that crosses the railroad at Hazellieff crossing. There is an estimated average daily traffic count of 2,000 cars per day which would use the proposed crossing. There are six passenger train movements every twenty-four hours on the railroad at those crossings. There are six through freights every twenty-four hours and four local freights every twenty- four hours, plus additional extra trains as needed. The speeds range up to 79 miles per hour for passenger trains and 60 miles per hour for freight trains. The passenger trans are the AMTRAK trains. A need has been established for another opening across the railroad because of the long and circuitous route that must be traveled to enter the subdivision. In the event of a storm, there is an additional hazard to the road because of two bridges that must be crossed. The proposed opening would decrease greatly the mileage to be traveled to fire or hospital. The parties agreed that the proper signalization for the proposed crossing would be automatic crossing gates, flashing lights and ringing bells. The Applicant contends that an opening is needed to serve the growing subdivision known as Treasure Island; that the existing crossing is insufficient as far as the safety of the community is concerned and requires a much longer way to be traveled by the residents of the subdivision. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad contends that the existing public opening should be used and right of way bought by the county so that there would not be an additional crossing of the tracks. AMTRAK contends that there should be no new openings across the tracks where the passenger trains attain high speeds unless there is a great need and a study made to see if there cannot be a closing to balance the opening across the tracks. Florida Department of Transportation contends that a need has been established for the crossing and that the parties have agreed that lights, bells and gates are the needed signalization. The Hearing Officer further finds: That a need has been established by the Applicant. That proper signalization includes flashing lights, ringing bells and gates.
Recommendation Grant permit, providing there is a clearance from the Safety Engineer as to the visibility problem pointed out by the Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Daniel H. Brunner, Esquire 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Southwest Washington, D. C. 20024 W. L. Hendry, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1337 Okeechobee, Florida Jack J. Vereen, Jr. Assistant Division Engineer 2206 N. W. 7th Avenue Miami, Florida 33127 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 =================================================================
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 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
Findings Of Fact The City is an incorporated city within the State of Florida. The subject railroad crossing on South Caledonia Street is located within the city limits of Marianna. The DOT is the agency of state government which is charged with the regulation of railroad crossings, to include the determination of whether a crossing should be opened or closed. The CSX is the railroad company which owns the railroad and railroad crossing in question and which may have to pay a portion of the costs of any improvements to the crossing. South Caledonia Street is constructed along a section line and runs due south through Marianna connecting US 90, a major east-west arterial highway, with the southern portion of Marianna and its rural environs as it becomes Highway 73 at its intersection with Jefferson Street. See Railroad's Exhibit 1. South Caledonia Street, one of ten north-south streets which crosses the railroad within the limits of Marianna, is the only one which runs straight south over the tracks to Interstate 10. South Caledonia Street is one of the four streets which provides transit over the tracks in the eastern portion of Marianna. In order from east to west, Jefferson Street, Green Street, Caledonia or South Caledonia Street (the one in question), and West Caledonia Street run north and south and provide the principal links between US 90 and South Street, in the eastern portion of the City. South Street is a major east-west street in the southern part of the City. The other east-west roads south of US 90 are Jackson Street north of the railroad; Pearl Street running west from South Caledonia between the railroad and South Street; and unpaved Franklin Street running eastward immediately north of the railroad between Caledonia and Green Streets and running westward south of the railroad between Caledonia and West Caledonia Streets. South Caledonia and West Caledonia Streets are principally residential from South Street to one block south of the railroad tracks, and commercial north of the railroad tracks. DOT's Exhibit 1 is an annotated aerial photograph of this portion of the City showing the major roads named above and the daily traffic counts on them. In recent years, the railroad crossings on West Caledonia, Green, and Jefferson Streets have been upgraded to current standards. The crossing on Caledonia Street is not improved, and the street is in very poor condition between Jackson and Pearl Streets; however, planned resurfacing of the street has been delayed while this case is litigated because upgrading the crossing will require recontouring of Caledonia Street. The poor condition of Caledonia Street has reduced traffic on the street over the railroad and has caused the existing traffic to go slower. There has never been a train-car accident at the South Caledonia Street crossing. Recontouring Caledonia Street at the railroad crossing will eliminate or reduce access to A.B. Williams Concrete and Block Company from Caledonia Street; however, there is access to the company from Green Street. The owner supports keeping the crossing open even if it restricts access to his business. Recontouring Caledonia Street would make it feasible for heavy trucks to move over the crossing on South Caledonia Street which is Highway 73 south of its intersection with Jefferson Street. Currently, the majority of the heavy truck traffic is using West Caledonia to move south and turning left on South Street to come back to Caledonia Street and out Highway 73. The intersection of West Caledonia and South Street is not well suited for such traffic. It will cost at least $250,000 to upgrade the existing crossing. It costs $612 each year to maintain the upgraded crossing. Letting the crossing remain open will have no effect on the operations of the railroad. There was no evidence presented on the costs of paving Franklin Street or the unpaved portions of the railroad right-of-way to enable traffic stopped at the railroad to move east and west north of the tracks or westward south of the tracks. There is no available route eastward south of the tracks. No evidence on the traffic count over the crossing was presented. The DOT did not take a traffic count over the crossing. If the closure of the South Caledonia Street crossing increases the traffic on Jefferson Street, currently 4,000 vehicles per day, to 5,000 vehicles per day, the Jefferson Street crossing will have to be upgraded to have bells, lights and gates. A significant increase in traffic count on Jefferson Street is possible given the current use rate of Caledonia Street north and south of the railroad, which is known. No evidence was presented on the cost of upgrading the Jefferson Street crossing. Caledonia Street is not used by emergency vehicles or school buses, and there are viable alternatives for emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks if this crossing were eliminated. However, closing this crossing will create a cul-de-sac north and south of the existing crossing on Caledonia Street because of the absence of paved east-west through streets. As indicated above, it will be very inconvenient and costly to create east-west links to eliminate these cul-de-sacs. In spite of the poor condition of the crossing and the road surface and the availability of alternatives, Caledonia Street carries more traffic than does Green Street which has had its crossing upgraded. Caledonia Street, upon which the subject crossing is located, is the only straight north-south route from US 90 to Highway 73. The preservation of this route for the future must be considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that CSX, Inc.'s Petition to close the public vehicular crossing on Caledonia Street in Marianna, Florida, be denied, and said crossing be kept open. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ben C. Watts Interim Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Michael D. Mee, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Stephen H. Shook, Esquire 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Post Office Box 793 Marianna, Florida 32446 ================================================================= AGENCY REMAND ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Petitioners, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 89-3557 CITY OF MARIANNA, Respondent. / ORDER REMANDING CAUSE FOR RECONSIDERATION The Recommended Order was issued in this cause on November 14, 1989. On December 4, 1989, the Department of Transportation filed Agency's Exceptions to Recommended Order, copy of which is attached. A review of the complete record has been made. The Department of Transportation remands the instant cause to Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, for reconsideration based on the following: The Recommended Order states in Finding of Fact Number 9 that the closure or the South Caledonia Street crossing would increase the traffic on Jefferson Street resulting in one upgrading of the Jefferson Street crossing by the addition of bells, lights and gates. The finding is not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. At the hearing below, testimony was adduced that the Jefferson Street crossing has already been upgraded with bells, lights and gates. (Transcript pages 99 - 100) Since the Hearing Officer relied, in part, upon this incorrect factual determination, the case is remanded to the Hearing Officer for reconsideration pursuant to the facts as corrected. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the instant cause is remanded, for twenty days following receipt of this Order, to Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings for reconsideration. DONE AND ORDERED, this 21st day of December, 1989. BEN G. WATTS, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen H. Shook, Esquire 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Post Office Box 793 Marianna Florida 32446 Michael D. Mee Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ================================================================= ORDER ON REMAND =================================================================
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.
