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 Whether a permit to close the CSX public at-grade railroad crossing located at C and J Road in Santa Rosa County should be granted pursuant to Rule 14-46.003(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1994, CSX submitted an application to close the public at-grade railroad crossing located at C and J Road, (also known as Zero Lane) in Santa Rosa County. On November 8, 1995, DOT filed its Intent to Issue a Permit to close the C and J Road crossing. C and J Road is a narrow two lane, two-way paved road approximately 20 feet wide. The road runs roughly 0.2 mile in a north/south direction, with two zig-zag ninety degree turns at its southern end. After the road's ninety degree turn to the south, C and J Road crosses the CSX railroad tracks at the same elevation or grade as the railroad tracks and then "T" intersects with US Highway 90 via the crossing. Official area maps do not show C and J Road crossing the tracks or its intersection with US Highway 90. US Highway 90 runs roughly in an east/west direction. The CSX tracks parallel US Highway 90. One passenger and eight freight trains use the CSX railroad tracks and the crossing on a daily basis. At its north end C and J Road intersects with Johnson Road. Johnson Road extends generally in an east/west direction. It connects with St. Johns Road approximately 0.4 mile to the west of C and J Road. Additionally, Johnson Road connects with Airport Road approximately 0.5 mile to the east of C and J Road. Cassie Lane is a narrow, two-way, two-lane paved road. The road runs roughly north and south between C and J Road and Johnson Road. Cassie Lane connects to C and J Road via an "L" shaped curve just north of the crossing. Elimination of the crossing would turn C and J Road and Cassie Lane into a U-shaped road with exits on Johnson Road to the north. Currently, the curve intersection of Cassie Lane to C and J Road is overgrown with vegetation. The vegetation obstructs motorists' view of the intersection of Cassie Lane and C and J Road. However, sight obstructions for overgrown vegetation can be eliminated. St. Johns Road is a two-lane, two-way paved road. Airport Road is a two-lane, two-way, paved road. Both roads run in a north/south direction. There is about 0.5 mile between each road's intersection with Johnson Road and US Highway 90. Both St. Johns Road and Airport Road have an at-grade crossing with CSX Railroad near US Highway 90. Both crossings are protected by flashing lights and gates. However, the C and J Road crossing is protected by only flashing lights. Flashing lights alone are a less safe alternative to flashing lights and gates. Five school buses use Airport Road on a daily basis. One school bus regularly uses St. Johns Road on a daily basis. Likewise, at least one school bus uses C and J Road and Cassie Lane on a daily basis. The closure of the C and J Road crossing will not significantly effect the routes or efficient operation of any school bus. Additionally, fire, police and emergency medical vehicles use both St. Johns Road and Airport Road regularly. Again, the closure of the C and J Road crossing will not significantly affect fire, police, or emergency vehicles. St. Johns Road has an average daily traffic (ADT) count of 308 vehicles. Airport Road has an ADT of 1,534 vehicles. Both are more heavily travelled than C and J Road with an ADT of 35 vehicles. Both St. Johns Road and Airport Road can handle any additional traffic routed to St. Johns Road from C and J Road and Cassie Lane. Respondent's church is located on C and J Road northwest of the crossing. Respondent has been an active church for over 118 years. Respondent has approximately 98 contributing members from the church and its parish. Approximately sixty members, both young and old, of Respondent's congregation walk to the church on Saturday or Sunday for services and functions being held by the church. Some pedestrians coming from US Highway 90 follow the roadway over the crossing. However, many pedestrians regularly use two, more direct, well-beaten short-cut routes, over the railroad to Respondent's church instead of going out of their way to use the C and J Road crossing. It is unlikely that the closure of the crossing will have any impact on the walking routes of the church members. DOT inspected the crossing and recommended alternate routes should C and J Road's outlet to U.S. Highway 90 be closed. The alternate routes recommended by DOT are C and J Road/Cassie Lane-Johnson Road-St. John's Road and C and J Road/Cassie Lane-Johnson Road-Airport Road . All of the alternate routes were less than 1.5 miles and could be safely driven in less than 2.5 minutes. Neither the time nor distance of any of the alternate routes were shown to be inconvenient or unreasonable. Since the crossing is within the Santa Rosa County's geographical and governmental authority and responsibility for maintenance, DOT notified the Santa Rosa County Commission of its intent to close the crossing. However, the County did not request a hearing to prevent closing the crossing and consolidating the roadway traffic. The county probably did not request such a hearing because it had made an agreement with CSX and DOT to "help" close another road crossing in order to build a rail crossing on the road leading to the County's new prison facility. Additionally, Respondent has not provided or established the existence of an agreement between Respondent and a governmental body to assume jurisdiction of the crossing as required in Rule 14-46.003(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation's decision to close the rail crossing at C and J Road in Santa Rosa County should be sustained. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephen H. Shook, Esquire CSX Transportation, Inc. Law Department, J 150 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Maldrick E. Bright, Esquire Post Office Box 3513 Milton, Florida 32572-3513 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 535 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the application of the Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC) to close the subject railway crossing should be dismissed for lack of regulatory jurisdiction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a propane gas distribution facility adjacent and parallel to the FEC railroad track within the Town of Lantana. The railroad track is between Petitioner's facility and U.S. Highway 1. To reach its property from U.S. Highway 1, Petitioner's employees must utilize a railroad crossing commonly known as Gator Culvert. The Gator Culvert is an at-grade railroad crossing. On October 13, 1948, the Town of Lantana acquired a right-of-way for road purposes at the Gator Culvert from Everett Wurtz, Petitioner's predecessor in title. On December 13, 1948, FEC and the Town of Lantana entered into a one-year renewable license to use the crossing for public road crossing purposes contingent upon the Town of Lantana assuming the cost of maintaining the crossing. On June 26, 1979, the Town of Lantana quit-claimed its interest in the right-of-way to Gator Culvert.2 On March 29, 1996, Petitioner filed suit against FEC seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding its rights to use the Gator Culvert crossing. This litigation is pending in Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. On June 28, 1996, FEC filed the subject application with Respondent for authorization to close the Gator Culvert crossing. On October 2, 1996, Petitioner amended the complaint that underpins the Circuit Court litigation to join Respondent and the Town of Lantana as defendants. By Count One of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner (referred to as Plaintiff in the Circuit Court pleadings) requests the Court to: . . . grant a declaratory judgment ruling that Plaintiff has a way of necessity purusant to F.S. Section 704.01(1) and that Defendants FEC, FDOT, and Town of Lantana may not close the crossing and thereby prevent Plaintiff's use of its way of necessity. Plaintiff further requests a trial by jury pursuant to F.S. Section 86.071. By Count Two of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner requests the Court to: . . . grant a declaratory judgment ruling that Plaintiff has a prescriptive easement and that Defendants FEC and the Town of Lantana may not close the crossing and thereby prevent Plaintiff's use of said easement. Plaintiff further requests a trial by jury pursuant to F.S. Sectioln 86.071. By Count Three of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner requests the Court to: . . . enter a temporary and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendant, FDOT from granting FEC's application to close the crossing; to restrain and enjoin Defendant FEC from ceasing to maintain and from closing the railroad crossing which provides the only access to Plaintiff's property; and to restrain and enjoin the Town of Lantana form executing the Stipulation for Approval of Closure3 or participating in any way with the attempted closure of said crossing. Count Four of the Amended Complaint pertained only to the Town of Lantana and did not involve Respondent. On August 14, 1998, Respondent published its Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application to close the subject railroad crossing in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This notice set forth Respondent's rationale for dismissing the application to close the Gator Culvert crossing that FEC had filed June 28, 1996, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The history of the crossroad, and its current condition indicate that it is not a public road. In particular, on the 26th day of June 1979, the Town of Lantana quit- claimed its interest to the right of way for public road purposes to Gator Culvert. While the prior status of the road as a public road is in doubt, this transaction effectively abandoned the right of way as a potential public roadway. Because the crossing is not a public railroad-highway grade crossing, the location is not subject to the Department's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 335.141, Florida Statutes. . . . On September 4, 1998, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with Respondent, the pleading that underpins this proceeding. On September 10, 1997, the Respondent issued a rails inventory that identified the Gator Culvert crossing as a private crossing. Scott Allbritton, Respondent's Rail Programs Engineer, reviewed and assessed the documents in the public record in processing FEC's application that were necessary and appropriate to determine whether the subject crossing was public or private, thereby determining whether Respondent lacked jurisdiction to regulate the subject crossing. His investigation revealed that the record title to the subject crossing was private. Based on Mr. Allbritton's investigation, Respondent determined that it lacked jurisdiction to regulate the subject crossing since it was not a public crossing. Respondent did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in making that determination. Respondent does not attempt to adjudicate real property disputes by its administration of the statutorily mandated railroad/vehicular traffic crossing program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that dismisses this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1999.
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation should issue a permit for the installation of a public at-grade railroad crossing in the vicinity of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad track, 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 on the alignment of Baya Avenue, East of Lake City, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony of witnesses for the petitioner and the arguments of counsel and those witnesses appearing for the Department of Transportation on the issues and considering the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, is duly authorized to establish and maintain a primary system of highways within the boundaries of the State of Florida. The Petitioner has heretofore filed an application with the appropriate division of the Department of Transportation of the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 330.21 Florida Statutes, for Permission to establish a graded railroad crossing for Baya Avenue (U.S. 90) within the city limits of Lake City, Florida on the state primary highway system proposed to intersect the Respondent Railroad's tracks approximately 1,027 feet North of Milepost 214 of the Georgia, Southern and Florida Railroad. The Respondent Railroad Company did not appear although the record shows that Notice of Hearing was properly given and that plans of the project and proposed signalization were duly sent by letter dated October 8, 1975. There was uncontroverted testimony by Mr. Terry Crews, Assistant District Utilities Engineer for the Petitioner that Mr. R. A. Kelso, Chief Engineer, Design and Construction, Southern Railway System had discussed a portion of the project by telephone with Mr. Crews and no objections were raised. No letters of objection were filed. The Petitioner is in the process of constructing a new four-lane vehicular thoroughfare. This construction is necessary in the rerouting of vehicular traffic through Lake City, Florida (U.S. 90). As a part of this construction it is necessary to cross the railroad and State Road 100 which lie adjacent to each other. It will be a four-lane divided highway with a painted median, with curbs and gutters in the vicinity of the crossing. At the time of construction, the railroad will consist of single-line trackage that carries two (2) trains per day at speeds of approximately 20 miles per hour. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 vehicles per day will use this facility by 1984. Studies conducted by Department of Transportation personnel reveal that the crossing should be signalized with cantilevered flashing lights, ringing bells and pavement markings in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This signalization should be interconnected with vehicle traffic signalization located at State Road 100 to control vehicular traffic at the highway crossing as well as the railroad crossing. The applicant agrees to install and maintain such signalization. The Hearing officer further finds: The proposed crossing is necessary and desirable; The signalization is adequate as planned, to protect the public; The Petitioner needs the crossing; The Respondent has not opposed the crossing; The Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, will Install and maintain the crossing.
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted to open a public at-grade rail highway crossing of the Florida East Coast Railway Company track at West Avenue "A" (Railway Mile Post K-61 + 4361'), in the City of Belle Glade, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The City Commission of the City of Belle Glade, Florida, prior to July 1, 1972, determined that it needed a grade level crossing on West Avenue "A" across the Florida East Coast Railway tracks. Thereafter on April 19, 1977 it submitted an application to the Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, through its City Manager, Robert R. Sanders for the railroad grade crossing. The type of rail line existing is single track; the number of trains per day from November to May is 11, and from May to November is 2, and the speed of trains is 35 mph. The proposal is for a grade level crossing two- lane road. The cost of signal installation and the cost of annual maintenance is to be charged to the Petitioner. The railroad creates a dividing barrier separating the eastern part of the city from the western part of the city; a canal separates the southern part of the city from the northern part of the city. South of the canal there are three street level crossings across the railroad, of which the northernmost is the canal. The next one to the south lies approximately 600' south at Northwest Avenue "D". The third lies approximately 2800' south of Avenue "D" crossing. The proposed crossing is approximately 1,600' north of the southernmost Avenue "E" crossing and approximately 1,200' south of the Avenue "D" crossing. The area lying immediately west of the Avenue "D" crossing is primarily residential. West Canal Street and Avenue "E" carry the bulk of the traffic from east and west and from west to east lying south of the canal. The proposed crossing would provide an additional access from east to west lying south of the canal. The opening of a West Avenue "A" crossing would take some of the traffic from the crossing at Southwest Avenue The site for the proposed crossing is located along a curve of the railroad track and there are some sight problems because of the curve and because of vegetation. There are two at-grade crossings north of the canal. The police station is located on West Avenue "A" in the center of town east of the proposed crossing site. The fire department is located on Southwest Avenue "E", both of which provide emergency services to the high density area of the city without the use of a railroad crossing. The response time to the high density area is a matter of minutes for both the fire department and police department. Some response time could be saved to the affected area by the installation of the proposed crossing, but the time saving is under four minutes. No evidence was submitted as to the average number of police and fire calls from the affected area and there was no projection as to the average daily traffic across the proposed crossing.
Recommendation Deny the permit. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: John E. Baker, Esquire City of Belle Glade 257 Southeast Avenue E Belle Glade, Florida 33430 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Humes, Jr., Esquire Florida East Coast Railway Co. One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084
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
The Issue The issue is whether the application submitted by Manatee County to the Florida Department of Transportation to open a railroad-highway grade crossing in Bradenton, Florida, meets the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 57.012(2)(a)1-6.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Manatee County, filed an application with FDOT for the opening of a public highway-rail grade crossing between railroad mile posts SW 912.27 and SW 911.87, to cross over the CSX Transportation rail line (the "Crossing"). The Crossing is proposed in connection with the expansion of a portion of 44th Avenue East, from 15th Street East extending eastward to 19th Street Court East. The extension of 44th Avenue is part of an east-west corridor within Manatee County that the County plans to extend east to U.S. 301, and is an extension of Cortez Road which terminates at the beaches of Manatee County to the west. The Department's public railroad-highway grade crossing program conducts studies on the more than 3700 public highway- rail grade crossings in Florida and creates an inventory to determine crossings that might be improved for safety reasons and for closure. Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-57.012 establishes the standards for opening and closing public railroad-highway grade crossings. The Department has endeavored to close or consolidate redundant, unsafe, and unnecessary crossings through an initiative from the Federal Railway Administration and the Federal Highway Administration to decrease the number of at- grade railroad crossings by 25 percent. The goal has not yet been met. Petitioner's policies dictate that before it agrees to a new crossing of one of its tracks, three existing crossings should be closed in connection with the opening. The County agrees that it is good policy to close as many existing crossings as possible when opening a new crossing. The closings help to decrease the potential for motor vehicle and train collisions, bicycle and train collisions, and pedestrian collisions with a train or flying debris from a train. Janice Bordelon, the Department's Rail Specialist, oversees the opening and closing of all public highway-rail grade crossings throughout the State of Florida. When she received the County's application for opening on November 21, 2002, she sent a copy of the application to Petitioner. Ms. Bordelon visited the proposed opening site and the surrounding area on at least three occasions. The Department sought input from both the County and Petitioner when considering the application for the Crossing. The land in the vicinity of the Crossing is varied to the north and is designated as light manufacturing. The area to the south is designated as warehousing and vacant industrial. The area to the east of the terminus of the Crossing is agricultural land. Much of the property in the area north and south of the Crossing is vacant, but scheduled for future use as an operations center. The railroad track in the vicinity of the Crossing is owned and operated by Petitioner. CSX Transportation, Inc., is the largest railroad in the eastern United States with approximately 22,000 route miles. Petitioner operates in 23 states, the District of Columbia, and two Canadian provinces. It is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner's operations in the vicinity of the Crossing currently involve the interchange of cars with the Seminole Gulf Railroad, just south of the Crossing. The purpose of the interchange is to exchange cars between two railroad companies. Current operations involve approximately eight train movements per week, consisting of 20 rail cars in each movement. Trains using this track travel at a speed of 20 miles per hour currently. The speed could change with the approval of the Crossing. The potential exits for Petitioner to increase its utilization of the track in the area of the Crossing. This would occur as a result of increased utilization of rail as a result of growth in both Manatee County and Florida. Based upon the character of the area near the Crossing, the possibility exists for location of a manufacturing facility or distribution center that could result in increased rail traffic. The Department reviewed and analyzed the safety of the proposed 44th Avenue Crossing, including the volume of rail and vehicle traffic, the proximity of existing crossings, the angle of proposed crossing, and surrounding land uses. The Department proposed solutions for mitigation of the identified safety issues through traffic synchronization and other design features such as curbs and signalization. The Intent to Permit issued by the Department recommends that the County pursue the consolidation of unnecessary rail crossings, especially those with light traffic and within a quarter mile of an existing crossing. The County's expert identified two such crossings for potential closure. Mr. G. Rex Nichelson, an expert in railroad crossing openings and closings, testified that the Crossing would ultimately be designed by the joint efforts of Petitioner and the County, resulting in the safest feasible design for the Crossing. He noted that there would be no possibility of a hump at the Crossing and that the design would utilize either an attenuator known as Kwik Curb or a nine-inch, non-mountable median to minimize the opportunity for drivers to circumvent the crossing gates and place themselves in harm's way. Petitioner would also be involved in the final design of the Crossing. The design features would enhance the safety of the Crossing. A flyover crossing, one that would divert traffic from direct contact with the rails at the Crossing, is prohibitively expensive and not justified in this case. The tracks are visible upon approach of the Crossing. The Department considered pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the Crossing, and determined it would not be significant. Trespass can occur in the area of railroad tracks, regardless of whether the Crossing were opened. The Department and the County collaborated to identify possible closures to offset the Crossing, and several were identified as a result. The Department determined the Crossing is necessary to alleviate existing vehicular traffic and serve planned industrial land uses in the area of the Crossing. The Crossing will draw a considerable amount of traffic from the existing roadway system onto a new roadway better designed to accommodate the traffic volume. Currently, traffic in the area of the proposed crossing is heavy, especially at peak times. Alternative routes for east-west vehicular traffic were examined and considered, but the 44th Avenue extension appears to be the safest, most direct way for the County to complete an east-west corridor in the area of the Crossing. The County considered alternative alignments for the Crossing, but none of these were preferable to the one selected due to sharp, unsafe crossing angles and increased right-of-way costs. The Crossing will affect rail operations and expenses due to increased liability and some maintenance costs. The County would also bear increased liability and would bear most, if not all, of the costs of maintenance, operation, and construction. The effect on rail operations would occur primarily during the construction phase of the Crossing. The effects on operations of the rail would be limited since no switching movements of trains in the area of the Crossing will occur, and based upon the fact that only a single track exists in the area of the Crossing. The parties did not attempt to quantify the extent of the effect on Petitioner's operations other than to anecdotally state that delays could occur, affecting crew overtime and the scheduling of cars, which could result in missed connections. Safety hazards exist associated with a crossing during switching operations. When a train is stopped during switching operations, some motorists become impatient and attempt to pull around the train. Some pedestrians even attempt to crawl over or under the train. The locomotive and train engineer could be 20 to 30-car lengths away when this occurs, and not see the pedestrians or motorists when restarting the train. However, current rail switching north and south of the Crossing would not block the Crossing, and no evidence was produced to demonstrate that Petitioner planned to establish additional switching movements in the area. Vehicles carrying hazardous materials or wastes present a concern since they could cause harm if the chemicals or waste were released. Additionally, these vehicles are required to stop at railroad crossings, which could lead to rear-end collisions. School buses approaching the railway must also stop before crossing, which can also lead to rear-end collisions by motorists. The Department considered the design of the grade crossing and road approaches. The Department considered the angle of crossing and made recommendations to minimize any dangers associated with the Crossing. If necessary, modifications would be made to the crossing gates in order to sufficiently protect motorist, bicyclists and pedestrians from crossing the railway when a train approaches. The plans submitted by the County might require modification during the design phase of the project. The project meets or exceeds the Department's engineering and design criteria. The angle of skew of the Crossing is reasonable. The grade in the area of the Crossing is flat and the Crossing itself will be flat.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the requested permit for opening a public railroad-highway grade crossing at 44th Avenue East, between mile posts SW 912.27 and SW 911.87, in Manatee County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce R. Conroy, Esquire Chief, Administrative Law & Real Property Division Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0810 Rodney C. Wade, Esquire Robert Michael Eschenfelder, Esquire Manatee County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 1000 Bradenton, Florida 34206-1000 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Denver Stutler, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact The railroad crossing which is the subject of this proceeding is crossing number 272859-B, in the City of Florida City, Florida. Its location at N.W. 14th Street is approximately 700 feet north of an existing crossing located at Lucy Street, and roughly 1900 feet south of a present crossing located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway. The Railway's rationale for closing the N.W. 14th Street crossing is that these other two nearby crossings offer practical alternate routes to the N.W. 14th Street crossing, and can provide public access and emergency services to the area. The City's opposition is based on its contention that closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing would affect emergency access to the area. The principal justification for the closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing is its proximity to the other crossings located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway and Lucy Street, and the resulting improvement in safety for vehicular traffic and railroad equipment. Removal of the subject crossing would eliminate vehicular accidents on the tracks, and eliminate upkeep and maintenance expenses caused by frequent vandalism at the N.W 14th Street crossing location. In addition, closure would eliminate the need to sound the train whistle at the N.W. 14th Street crossing which is located near a residential housing area. The Railway receives an average of two calls per week to report incidents of vandalism in the area of the N.W. 14th street crossing. This number of calls is above average compared to other crossings in the area. Moreover, closure of the subject crossing would permit the relocation of the signal devices now in use there to one of forty-four other crossings in or near Florida City. The traffic count taken in the vicinity of N.W. 14th Street, which is a local service road providing access to a single neighborhood, showed that about 600 vehicles per day use the crossing. Traffic counts taken at Lucy Street, a through street which provides service beyond any specific residential area, resulted in approximately 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day. The Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway crossings have sufficient capability to handle all traffic diverted to them if the 14th Street crossing should be closed. The N.W. 14th Street crossing also allows outside traffic to enter the residential area, contrary to good urban planning. By removal of the crossing, such through traffic would be eliminated. The alternate crossings at Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis parkway provide reasonable alternate routes, and removal of the subject crossing will not unduly inhibit access by emergency vehicles into the affected area. Although 75 percent of the calls the Florida City police receive originate from Cuban village, a heavily populated area surrounding N.W. 14th Street, if the subject crossing were closed, Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway could be used to respond to emergency police calls in the Cuban Village. Therefore, alternate routes are available for emergency access to the affected area. In addition, from a pedestrian safety standpoint, there is sufficient space along Lucy Street to allow pedestrians to walk there without being affected by vehicular traffic.
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. 14th Street in Florida City, Florida, be granted. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 15 day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 15 day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Evans, Esquire One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Thomas Tomassi, Esquire 137 N.W. 10th Street Homestead, Florida 33030 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 The proposed crossing is located at Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC) Mile Post 284.6 and would be formed by extension of Medical Center Drive (renamed Jupiter Lakes Boulevard) across the FEC tracks to Alternate A-1-A. The proposed crossing would be located within the jurisdiction of the city of Jupiter, Florida. The proposed crossing would affect an area bounded by US 1 on the east, the Florida Turnpike on the west, Indiantown Road on the north and Donald Ross Road on the south. See FEC Exhibit A. There is no necessity for opening the proposed crossing. The proposed crossing is located 0.32 mile south of the existing crossing at Toney Penna Drive. Access to the area served by Medical Center Drive is available via Old Dixie Highway (0.32 mile) or via Toney Penna Drive and Military Trail (0.99 mile). The existing crossing has lights, bells and gates. It would be more convenient to open the proposed crossing permitting direct access to Medical Center Drive; however, the convenience to the public would be minimal as indicated by the distances to Medical Center Drive via the alternate routes from the existing crossing at Toney Penna Drive. Because Medical Center Drive runs only 0.5 mile between Military Trail and Old Dixie Highway and cannot be extended to the east, the convenience to the public of opening the proposed crossing would be further minimized. Opening the proposed crossing would not enhance traffic flow onto or off of Alternate A-1-A when there is railway traffic because the proposed crossing is so close to the existing crossing that the gates and warning devices of both would have to operate simultaneously. Ref. Transcript of second hearing, page 132 (II - 132). The traffic volume is discussed in Paragraph 6 below. The opening of the proposed crossing would be detrimental to vehicle and rail safety because it would create another conflict point at which vehicular and rail traffic converge. No evidence of the degree of increase in danger was presented. The current traffic volume at the existing Toney Penna Drive crossing does not warrant opening the proposed crossing at this time, as indicated by the fact that it is not signalized (I - 208). It would be approximately five to ten years before the traffic volume approached the maximum capacity of the Toney Penna Drive crossing. The opinion of the city's expert was that in five years the Toney Penna Drive crossing would be unable to handle a peak traffic volume, but this assumed left turns off of Toney Penna Drive onto Old Dixie Highway would be permitted during peak hours (II - 113-118). This turning traffic was the primary impediment to moving the projected volumes of traffic. The crossing would be adequate with these left turns prohibited (I - 265). Traffic volumes are projected to increase, but improvement of any of the existing crossings will reduce volume at the remaining crossings (II - 113-118). Plans exist for the reconstruction of Alternate A-1-A in the area of the Toney Penna Drive crossing and the proposed crossing as a part of a rebuilding project to be undertaken in the next year to three years, to include improvement of the existing crossing. The operation of the railroad would be hindered by opening of the proposed crossing. The FEC track is essentially a single-lane track running north and south on the east coast of Florida. This railway line provides rail service to the major population centers on the east coast of the state. Trains are operated north and south on the single-lane track at the same time, and pass on sections of dual track installed for this purpose. It is desirable that these sections of dual track be three miles in length. Crossings over dual track are not desirable because they are more dangerous than single-track crossings. The number of three-mile sections of track without crossings is decreasing, and the section of track between Donald Ross Road and Toney Penna Drive is one of the few remaining three-mile sections of track in the south- central Florida region without crossings. Because of increased rail traffic resulting from the energy crisis, efficient operation of the railroad and safety requires that provisions be made for dual passing tracks without crossings (II - 128-130, 147, 150).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend to the agency head that the application for opening of a grade crossing at Medical Center Drive over the FEC tracks at Mile Post 284.6 be denied, and that the railroad crossing and intersect ion at Toney Penna Drive and Alternate A-1-A be redesigned and upgraded to accommodate the increased traffic volume projected for the future. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerome F. Skrandel, Esquire Old Port Cove Plaza 1200 US Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 John W. Humes, Esquire Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN OF JUPITER, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-781 FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent. /
