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 The railroad crossing which is the subject of this proceeding is crossing number 272642-N, in the City of Miami, Florida. Its location at N.W. 13th Street is approximately 430 feet south of an existing crossing located at N.W. 14th Street, and roughly 850 feet north of another crossing located at N.W. 11th Street. The Railway's rationale for seeking to close the N.W. 13th Street crossing is that these other two nearby crossings offer practical alternate routes to the N.W. 13th Street crossing, and can provide adequate access to the area for the public and emergency services. The City's opposition is based on its contention that closure of the N.W. 13th Street crossing would adversely affect emergency access to the area, and would restrict access to the adjacent area where the City has at least two redevelopment plans pending which contemplate the building of approximately 10,000 new residential housing units. The Department of Transportation supports the closing of the subject crossing, contending that the existing crossings at N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street can carry the traffic that would be diverted from N.W. 13th Street, and that closing the N.W. 13th Street crossing would eliminate a hazard to the public at that point. The section of the Florida East Coast Railway involved in this proceeding runs from N.E. 79th Street to Biscayne Boulevard, a distance of approximately five miles. There are approximately 30 crossings now in existence over this section of the railroad's track. The principal justification for the closure of the N.W. 13th Street crossing is its proximity to the two crossings located at N.W. 11th Street and at N.W. 14th Street, and the resulting improvement in safety for vehicular traffic and railroad equipment. There is an overpass with large pillars directly above the subject crossing, and a curve in the railroad track at this location which tend to restrict the view of train crews as the crossing is approached. Closure will also eliminate upkeep and maintenance expenses caused by frequent vandalism at the N.W. 13th Street crossing location, and eliminate one sounding of the train whistle between N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street. The present signal device at the N.W. 13th Street crossing is between 20 and 25 years old, and should require replacement within the next two years at an estimated cost of $41,570, unless the application is granted and the crossing closed. In addition, this signal device has been the subject of vandalism on four different occasions during the months of August, September and October, 1981, which necessitated repairs at the crossing site. The frequency of vandalism at the N.W. 13th Street location exceeds that at most of the other crossings in the Miami area. Northwest 13th Street is not a through street, but is a localized road which is blocked by the embankment for I-95. It is one-way westbound from the general vicinity of Biscayne Boulevard and 2nd Avenue to just beyond the subject crossing where it becomes two-way past the I-95 embankment. Both N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street are arterial roads which pass beneath I-95 and are not blocked by the embankment. They are the alternate roads in the area with adequate capacity to carry the traffic diverted from N.W. 13th Street if this crossing were closed. The movement of fire, police and other emergency vehicles would not be impeded by closing of the N.W. 13th Street crossing, since the crossings at N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street are readily available and offer better access to the area than N.W. 13th Street. Police or fire vehicles moving eastward over the N.W. 13th Street crossing must travel over a circuitous route because N.W. 13th Street is not a two-way street east of the crossing. In addition, closure of the subject crossing would remove an existing conflict point (a point where the path of any vehicle is interrupted by another vehicle), which is beneficial from a safety standpoint. Finally, any population growth in the area will have adequate transportation over N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street and will not require the use of the N.W. 13th Street crossing. Consequently, there will not be any significant impact upon traffic over the crossings at N.W. 14th Street and N.W. 11th Street by closure of the N.W. 13th Street crossing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida East Coast Railway Company to close the at-grade railroad crossing at N.W. 13th Street in Miami, Florida, be granted. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this the 17th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Evans, Esquire One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Terry V. Percy, Esquire 174 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1982.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation (DOT) should approve the permit requested by Palm Beach County (County) for a railway grade crossing over the tracks of the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) at Frederick Small Road.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On April 3, 1984, the Town of Jupiter, a municipality within the geographical boundaries of Palm Beach County, Florida, approved a resolution to participate with the County in an effort to obtain a railway grade crossing over the tracks of the FEC at Frederick Small Road. Frederick Small Road is designated as a major arterial roadway under the County's thoroughfare plan and the Jupiter comprehensive land use plan. Both plans designate that Frederick Small Road be improved to connect State Road A-I-A to Military Trail to establish an east-west corridor. Consequently, the resolution described in paragraph 1 was passed so that the two entities could pool their resources to obtain the permit necessary to construct the crossing. On or about June 12, 1984, the County engineer submitted a railroad grade crossing application to DOT. This application specified the crossing to be at Frederick Small Road and included attachments regarding the proposed location of the crossing, its design, and the authorization for the application from the local governments. On October 27, 1988, DOT issued an Intent to Issue Permit which found that the criteria set forth in Section 335.141, Florida Statutes, together with the applicable rule, had been met and approved the crossing under specified conditions. Those conditions were: The FEC will provide, furnish or have furnished, all necessary materials required for, and will construct at the Applicant's expense, a standard railroad crossing Type "T" Modified in accordance with the Department's Standard Index Number 560 attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "D". Upon completion of the crossing, the Applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance and maintenance costs of the roadbed and surface outside the limits of the railway ties throughout the crossing area. The Railroad Company shall be responsible for the maintenance of all track structure and rail components, including the road surface and substructure within the width of the rail ties throughout the crossing area, all at the expense of the Applicant. The Railway Company shall furnish the necessary materials and install at the Applicant's expense, automatic grade crossing signals and/or other traffic control devices, Type - IV, Class - III, in accordance with the Department's Standard Index 17882 attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "E". Upon completion of the signal installation, the Applicant shall be responsible for the annual maintenance cost in accordance with the amounts specified in the Department's Form 841-37, as amended, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "F". The Railway Company shall be responsible for the actual maintenance of the signal devices. The Applicant and Railroad Company shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement covering the grade crossing and signal devices and furnish the Department a copy of the executed Agreement. Construction of the public railroad - highway grade crossing shall commence within twenty-four (24) months from execution of this document or this permit shall become null and void. Frederick Small Road is located within a rapidly developing area of northern Palm Beach County. Access to this area has been enhanced by the opening of a segment of Interstate 95. Since the opening, the Jupiter community has grown dramatically. Development has also been encouraged by the change in a policy of the MacArthur Foundation which is now allowing development of large tracts of its lands. Formerly, these lands, located in the vicinity of the proposed crossing, were to remain undeveloped. As a result of the increase in population, traffic generated along Frederick Small Road has greatly increased. The other east-west corridors have also experienced increased traffic. Currently, traffic using Frederick Small Road must divert either north or south to railway crossings in order to cross the FEC. A crossing at Frederick Small Road would afford traffic a more direct access to a hospital, a school, and a major development. The growth experienced in the Jupiter area is likely to continue. The crossing at Frederick Small Road would be more likely to be utilized and be more convenient to use than other alternate traffic routes. The alternate traffic routes are congested; consequently, there are significant vehicular delays when trains traverse the crossings. An additional crossing at Frederick Small Road would not significantly delay railway traffic. The opening of the Frederick Small Road crossing should result in an increased likelihood of rail-traffic accidents. However, the likelihood of more severe accidents at the alternate route crossings would increase if the crossing at Frederick Small is not opened. A grade-separated crossing results in fewer rail- traffic accidents. Such crossings are appropriate when the traffic volumes are so great that the crossing at grade would result in a great likelihood of rail-traffic accidents. In this case, the estimated traffic volumes do not warrant a grade- separated crossing. The opening of a railway grade crossing creates a potential for railway liability based upon accident costs. The effect of the crossing proposed for Frederick Small Road should not adversely affect the railroad's operation expenses in another way. The costs associated with the maintenance of the crossing will be borne by the applicant. The County intends to close one railway crossing at a location south of the one proposed for Frederick Small Road. The closing of that crossing should result in a net reduction in operating expenses for the FEC. The costs associated with the potential liability due to traffic-rail accidents are not certain. Those potential costs do not outweigh the convenience to be derived from the opening of the crossing. The proposed design for the crossing and its signalization meet all applicable road-rail standards. There are no visibility factors to preclude the opening of the grade crossing proposed for Frederick Small Road. There are no existing passing tracks to be affected by the proposed crossing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the permit application for a railway grade crossing at Frederick Small Road under the terms outlined in the Intent to Issue. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 89-0536 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraphs 4 through 7 are rejected as conclusions, argument, comment or contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 8, it is accepted that the opening of the Frederick Small Road crossing will result in an increased potential for automobile/rail accidents at that location; however, there will not be a substantial economic impact on the FEC such conclusion is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 9, it is accepted that the Frederick Small Road crossing will cause reduced train speeds but that should not substantially impact the operations of the FEC; consequently, the balance of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE COUNTY AND DOT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 2 are accepted; the balance is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or argument. Paragraph 3 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 4 is accepted; the balance is rejected as comment, irrelevant, or cumulative. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. Paragraph 7 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 8 and 9 are accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 11-14 are rejected cumulative, irrelevant, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraphs 17-20 are rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraph 21 is rejected as cumulative. With regard to paragraph 22, it is accepted that the new crossing will result in an increase in train/vehicle accidents; otherwise the paragraph is rejected as argument or comment. The first two sentences of paragraph 23 are accepted; the balance is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 28 are accepted. Paragraphs 29 through 33 are rejected as cumulative, irrelevant, or comment. Paragraphs 34 through 36 are rejected as comment, argument, or cumulative. The first sentence of paragraph 37 is accepted; the balance is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 38 is accepted. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument, comment, and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald K. Kolins Thomas A. Sheehan, III MOYLE, FLANIGAN, KATZ FITZGERALD & SHEEHAN, P.A. Post Office Box 3888 625 North Flagler Drive 9th Floor-Barnett Centre West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Lawrence Paine Florida East Coast Railway Company 1550 Prudential Drive Suite 400 Post Office Box 1380 Jacksonville, Florida 32201-1380 Rivers Buford Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact 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.
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
Findings Of Fact The petitioners are in the process of constructing a rural connector road between State Road 11 and U. S. Highway 1 in Flagler County. This is to be a two-lane twenty (20) foot wide pavement secondary road with the right-of-way acquisition and construction costs being provided by secondary gasoline tax funds allocated to Flagler County. The county has provided the necessary rights-of-way for the project. The project, as designed, provides for a realignment of the existing road to afford a straight approach to its connection with U. S. Highway 1. This realignment will eliminate the existing railroad crossing that is presently signalized with passive signalization consisting of standard cross-buck signs. The closing of the crossing will also eliminate a hazardous condition due to the sharp angles involved in the highway alignment at the present crossing. The proposed crossing is to be approximately 600 feet north of the existing crossing. Provision has been allowed for ingress and egress to individuals living in the area. The proposed crossing will intersect with the railroad tracks almost perpendicularly. The railroad, at this location, consists of a single track. There are sixteen (16) freight trains scheduled per day with a maximum speed of 60 miles per hour. In the vicinity of the proposed crossing the railroad track is straight. There is a curve in the track approximately 700 feet north from the proposed crossing. As a part of the proposed crossing there is to be Type II signalization installed consisting of a train-activated cantilevered flashing lights and ringing bells. These cantilevered signals are to be mounted on roadside posts which will allow maximum shoulder clearance for a fixed object in accordance with current practice and still provide for two (2) flashing lights suspended directly over each driving lane. Traffic studies conducted by the Planning Section of the Department of Transportation reflect that at present approximately 87 vehicles per day use the existing crossing. It is anticipated that 100 vehicles per day will use the proposed crossing when it is opened and projections estimate that in twenty (20) years approximately 400 vehicles per day will use the crossing. State Road S-304 is not used as a school bus route at this time nor is it anticipated that this road will be used for school buses in the foreseeable future. Permits to open and to close the crossing as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above styled case at Trenton, Florida on July 8, 1980.
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 Whether a permit should be granted for an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Post AX-973, 480 feet south of said mile post.
Findings Of Fact There is being constructed in Lee County, Florida, a roadway known as the Six Mile Parkway and also known as the Ortiz Loop Road. This roadway is a four lane divided highway with two 24 foot sections separated by a 40 foot median strip constituted of grass. The speed limit at the proposed railroad crossing is 55 mph. The average daily traffic is estimated to be 6,000 cars by the year 1978 and 18,000 cars by the year 1985. The railroad is a single tract facility, which carries three trains per week and six trips. These trains are freight trains with a speed limit of 35 mph at the proposed crossing. The trains average 30 cars per train, and primarily haul limerock and "stump wood". If a local mine, which is in operation, should increase production, the average number of trips per week could increase to 10 trains. Trains that travel on this track at this time, travel between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., on a daily basis, but are not more particularly scheduled. It is contemplated that the cost of the installation of the railroad crossing with safety devices and the maintenance of this railroad crossing is to be paid for by Lee County, Florida. Lee County, through their expert witness, John Walter Ebner, P.E., testified that they would propose a type II, grade crossing with four lanes, the same width as the highway, with the identical pavement and a grass median of similar width as the highway. The safety device proposed by the applicant, Lee County, Florida, is a train activated flashing lights and bells device with cantilevered signalization. The Applicant does not feel control gates would be necessary at the present, considering the traffic volume of automobiles and trains. The Department of Transportation and the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad agree with the proposal of the Applicant, with the exception of feeling that automatic train gates should be installed from the inception of the construction of the railroad crossing. The Applicant is additionally concerned about the economics of the installation of a train activated device with automatic train gates. The concern is that the cost will be an additional $20,000 above their recommended safety device. The official statement of agreement to the construction of the at-grade crossing is found in the Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida which was offered as an exhibit by the Applicant in the course of the hearing. That exhibit is Applicant's Exhibit #1. There was no offering of testimony or further statement by members of the general public or other parties.
Recommendation It is recommended that the permit be granted, to open the subject crossing, utilizing the safety equipment proposed by the Applicant, with the addition of the installation of automatic gates. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operation Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James T. Humphrey, Esquire Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Marvin R. Herring Train Master Seaboard Coastline Railroad 1102 New Tampa Highway Lakeland, Florida 33801
Findings Of Fact In 1927, the City of Haines City and the Atlantic Coastline Railroad Company entered into a written agreement to construct a crossing at Charles Street, now known generally as Currie Street. The city expended public funds in the construction of the crossing. The construction agreement contained no termination date and the crossing has been open and in use since its construction in 1927. The crossing is one of seven inside the city limits which are located along a two mile length of track. The track services four (4) passenger trains and ten (10) freight trains daily. While the train speed limit at the Charles Street crossing is seventy miles per hour for passenger trains and fifty miles per hour for freight trains, it is not possible for trains traveling at such speeds to stop quickly in the event of a blockage on the track. A passenger train would require approximately three quarters of a mile to stop while a freight train would require roughly one mile. Passenger trains primarily utilize the track during the day while freight trains utilize the track during an entire twenty-four hour period. Safety is the main factor considered by the Department in determining whether to open or close a railroad crossing. The Charles Street crossing is somewhat dangerous because of its "Z" shaped design which requires cars approaching the crossing to travel parallel to the tracks, thus hindering visibility. Visibility on the west side of the crossing is restricted because of the presence of an overpass and bridge piers. While visibility is impaired to a degree by the piers, a driver approaching the crossing has an adequate line of sight in both directions. The approach to the crossing is extremely rough and traffic by necessity crosses Charles Street at very low speeds. The crossing is not heavily utilized by vehicular traffic. Additionally, traffic noise from the nearby overpass could blend with a whistle signal thus causing a safety problem. However, on the days when readings at the crossing were taken, the adjacent noise level did not drown out the train whistle. In the opinion of the Department's Railroad Committee, the occurrence of accidents at the crossing is not required before the Committee determines a particular crossing to be hazardous. The Department also considers the need for emergency services and fire and police protection in determining whether to recommend closure. The proposed alternate crossing, McKay Street, is closer to the fire and police departments than Charles Street. However, because locomotives sometimes block the McKay Street crossing to service several industries located east of the crossing, 1/ emergency vehicles attempting to service certain residential areas would be required to travel an added distance of as much as two miles. Although the Railroad plans to install motion sensor devices, it does not appear that such devices would be satisfactory in a situation where a train was totally blocking a crossing. Although the railroad has a procedure for moving trains in emergency situations, it would be quicker to travel the approximate four minutes it could take to cover the added two miles rather than utilize the existing procedures. Moreover, response time is a factor in determining fire safety and is of added importance in this case because of the type of housing located in the area. Because of these factors, it appears that the closing of Charles Street could unduly inhibit the movement of emergency type vehicles. The alternative McKay Street route proposed by the Department and Railroad is through an existing residential area. McKay Street was neither designed nor built to accommodate heavy truck traffic. Additionally, a city ordinance prohibits driving semi-trucks through a residential area. The businesses utilizing the Charles Street crossing include a carnival operator and an automobile garage. Both businesses require the use of heavy equipment and trucks. McKay Street is not a viable alternative route for these businesses because of the cities prohibition on use of McKay Street for truck traffic and the manner in which the street was constructed. If the ordinances were not amended, these property owners and possibly others could lose lawful access to their property and businesses. The Department's Railroad Committee which recommends which rail/highway crossings should be closed, considers the existence of a feasible or viable alternate route to be critical to the recommendation regarding closure. If a viable alternate route does not exist, the committee would not recommend that a crossing be closed. While the Charles Street crossing has a number of features which could increase the chances of an accident occurring at the crossing, no such accidents have occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petition of the Florida Department of Transportation and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Inc., to close the rail/highway crossing at Charles Street is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
