The Issue The issue is whether Respondent CSX Transportation, Inc.'s railroad crossing located on Old Kings Road in Jacksonville, Florida, meets the criteria for closure as set forth in Rule 14-46.003(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact History and Current Status of Crossing Old Kings Road has been in existence at least since 1837. The road was located in its approximate location in COJ's city limits prior to the arrival of the railroad. COJ owns and maintains Old Kings Road. The subject of this proceeding is a public at-grade railroad crossing ("the Crossing"), designated by FDOT as Crossing No. 621191C. The Crossing is located in the northwestern part of COJ in Duval County, Florida. The Crossing intersects with Old Kings Road, which has always been an important means of ingress and egress to downtown COJ for residents located west of the Crossing. A neighborhood association, the Grand Park Civic Club, requested that COJ build an overpass over the Crossing due to train blockages in the 1930's. The Crossing originally consisted of five tracks. Later it was increased to seven tracks. In 1995, CSXT requested COJ to consider closing the Crossing. COJ refused this request. In April 1997, CSXT filed an application with FDOT to close the Crossing. Neither CSXT nor FDOT gave COJ immediate notice that FDOT was considering the application. However, as early as January 15, 1998, CSXT was aware that COJ opposed the closing. In July 1998, CSXT closed the Crossing for repairs with COJ's acquiescence. COJ understood originally that the repairs would last from two to four weeks. Some months later, COJ learned that the Crossing might not reopen until December 1998. COJ learned about CSXT's application to close the Crossing sometime during the fall of 1998. At that time, FDOT verbally conveyed the information about the pending application for closure of the Crossing to COJ. In October 1998, COJ wrote a letter requesting FDOT's assistance in opening the Crossing because FDOT had not issued a permit to close it. Then in February 1999, CSXT advised FDOT by letter that CSXT and COJ were engaged in negotiations regarding closure of the Crossing. In August 1999, FDOT suspended consideration of the application pending the on-going negotiations between COJ and CSXT. In a February 2000 letter, COJ again requested FDOT to reopen the Crossing until such time as formal hearings were held and/or the parties could enter into a stipulation. FDOT's consideration of the application remained suspended at that time. In October 2000, CSXT requested that FDOT reopen the file on its application. By letter November 1, 2000, FDOT advised CSXT that the file would be reopened. On January 31, 2001, FDOT issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Permit to close the Crossing. The Crossing remained closed at the time of the formal hearing. The Crossing CSXT conducts freight rail operations on railroad tracks that run in a northwest - southeast direction across Old Kings Road in Jacksonville, Florida. The Crossing is located within the yard limits of CSXT’s Moncrief Yard, a large classification yard for CSXT trains. CSXT removed the two westernmost tracks and the roadbed at the Crossing after closing it in July 1998. Currently, the Crossing has a total of five parallel railroad tracks that cross the road at a skewed angle of approximately 20 degrees. The distance across the existing tracks is 276 feet. On both sides of the Crossing, Old Kings Road is a two-lane highway with no sidewalks. The Crossing has more railroad tracks than any other railroad crossing in Jacksonville, Florida. The Crossing has automatic crossing gates and flashing signal lights. CSXT disconnected these traffic control devices when CSXT closed the Crossing in July 1998. FDOT has no plans to upgrade the traffic control devices regardless of whether the Crossing is reopened or remains closed. The Crossing is located in an urban area. The next crossing point over the CSXT rail lines is located at the Edgewood Avenue Bridge, 1.35 miles to the north as measured along the rails. Going south, again measuring along the rails, the next CSXT crossing is 1.7 miles away at McQuade Street. The McQuade Street crossing is located at the southern end of Moncrief Yard. The easternmost track at the Crossing is the CSXT mainline track. The mainline track is the primary track for Amtrak passenger trains and CSXT freight trains that do not require switching or maintenance in the Moncrief Yard. The speed limit for trains using the mainline track is 40 miles per hour. The remaining four tracks at the Crossing are yard tracks, which CSXT uses for the assembly of trains on the north end of the Moncrief Yard, as well as inbound and outbound freight train arrivals and departures. The four yard tracks have a speed limit of 10 miles per hour. Train Movements at Old Kings Road Crossing There are approximately 100 train movements, including switching movements across the Crossing on a daily basis. Switching movements in the Moncrief Yard involve the assembly and disassembly of trains through the movement of freight cars into designated yard tracks. Switching movements take place in the Moncrief Yard 24 hours per day, seven days per week, except for Christmas, Thanksgiving and select holidays. Switching movements are carried out primarily at the north end of Moncrief Yard near the Crossing because the track layout at that end is best suited for such operations. Other parts of the yard do not lend themselves to efficient switching operations. In order to be switched, a cut of railroad cars must be moved back and forth repeatedly, with pauses between movements. Once switching is complete, federal law requires the train's brakes to be checked. The train then must wait for the track to be clear of other train traffic before departing. Often a cut of railroad cars will pull close enough to the Crossing to activate the warning lights and gates without actually blocking the roadway. When that happens, a motorist will see an open roadway and a stopped train that is the apparent cause of the activation of the warning devices. This circumstance creates a uniquely hazardous situation for motorists and pedestrians. CSXT operates between 11 and 22 intermodal trains daily through Moncrief Yard, which is an unusually extensive operation. Approximately 40 locomotives per day are serviced in the yard. Amtrak operates daily approximately nine scheduled movements over the mainline track throughout the day and night. Due to its proximity to the Moncrief Yard, Old Kings Road is regularly blocked by trains engaged in switching movements that travel back and forth across the Crossing, in addition to other train traffic. There is no practical method of operating the Moncrief Yard without blocking Old Kings Road for extended periods of time. This is the only CSXT railroad crossing in the State of Florida that is regularly blocked by switching movements for extended periods of time. On November 29 and 30, 2000, CSXT studied the amount of time that the Crossing was blocked by train movements. The study demonstrated that train traffic blocked the Crossing for a total of 12 hours and six minutes during a 24-hour period of time. Such blockage has consistently existed at the Crossing for 30 years or more. On July 31 through August 2, 2001, COJ studied the amount of time that the Crossing was blocked by train movements. The results of the COJ study were consistent with the CSXT study of train blockages at the Crossing. The surveys performed by CSXT and COJ to determine the time that trains blocked the Crossing measured only the amount of time that one or more trains actually blocked Old Kings Road. If the Crossing were open to traffic, Old Kings Road would be blocked for even longer periods of time because the flashing lights and gates would activate before the trains arrived at the Crossing. Motor Vehicle Traffic at the Crossing From 1991 to 1997, the average daily traffic volume in the vicinity of the Old Kings Road crossing was less than 2,000 vehicles per day. The motor vehicle traffic volume at Old Kings Road is considered a low traffic count by FDOT standards. The traffic volume at the Crossing is far too low to justify expending the funds and other resources necessary to construct an overpass. Safety Effects upon Rail and Vehicle Traffic Some of the facts necessary to determine safety effects upon rail and vehicle traffic are discussed in paragraph 20. Due to the height and length of slow-moving or stopped trains involved in switching operations on some or all of the four railroad tracks to the west of the CSXT main line, motorists approaching the crossing from the west cannot see fast-moving trains, including Amtrak passenger trains, approaching the Crossing on the CSXT mainline. Likewise, the 20-degree skew of the intersection makes it difficult for westbound motorists on the east side of the Crossing to look to their left to determine whether a northbound train is approaching. Motorists frustrated by the long wait times at the Crossing regularly drive around the crossing gates. They take this risk often under the mistaken belief that stopped or slow moving trains have activated the signal lights and gates. At times vehicles fall off the roadway as drivers attempt to go around trains partially blocking the roadway. Drivers also become distracted by the beveled and rough roadway surface between the numerous tracts. These circumstances, together with the regular and extended blockages, give motorists a high probability of interacting with train traffic while simultaneously almost inviting them to run the gates. COJ’s neighborhood witnesses testified that they either personally drove around the lowered crossing gates at the Crossing or observed other motorists driving around the gates in order to avoid extended train delays. COJ witnesses, Rebecca Jenkins and Talmadge Ford, have observed two to four vehicles driving around the crossing gates at the same time. Motor vehicles have also been stranded on the railroad tracks on several occasions when motorists drove around the lowered gates and left the paved road area at the Crossing. The safety hazards present are unique to the Crossing based upon the presence of a substantial number of train- switching movements over the crossing, multiple tracks with trains of varying speeds, motorist frustration over train delays, obstructions to visibility and a general misapprehension by the motoring public of the nature of yard switching movements. Unlike the Crossing, the majority of railroad crossings do not contain multiple railroad tracks within yard limits with trains performing different operations at different rates of speed. Due to the skewed angle of the Crossing, the presence of five railroad tracks, and the location of the crossing gates, the distance that a motor vehicle or pedestrian must travel to traverse the Crossing is 397 feet. Even if the signal lights were relocated closer to the railroad tracks, the distance across Old Kings Road would be approximately 276 feet, the actual distance across the tracks. The substantial length and the skewed angle of the Crossing reduce visibility for motorists and increase the probability of a crossing accident. The use of commercial trucks over the Crossing on a regular basis would substantially increase the danger of an accident due to the distance that a truck must travel over the Crossing under normal operating conditions. Because of their length, large commercial trucks take longer to clear a crossing than a car traveling at the same speed. There were at least 12 railroad-crossing accidents at the Crossing from 1975 until 1998. Most of these accidents occurred on account of violation of law by drivers or pedestrians. One of these, a motor vehicle accident, resulted in a fatality. Six of the eight accidents involving a motorist resulted in no personal injury. Even so, the Crossing had the highest number of grade-crossing accidents in Jacksonville, Florida, from 1975 until 1998. In January 2001, COJ commissioned a Jacksonville engineering firm, Waitz and Moye, to perform a study of 10 railroad crossings in the northwest quadrant of Jacksonville, Florida. This study included the Crossing, which had the highest number of accidents of the 10 railroad crossings. There were twice as many accidents at the Crossing than the crossing with the second highest number of accidents, despite the fact that the Crossing had one of the lowest traffic volumes. In addition to accidents, there have been numerous near-miss incidents at the Crossing, where motorists driving around the crossing gates narrowly avoided injuries. Due to obstructions to visibility, an Amtrak train traveling 40 miles per hour on the CSXT main line does not have sufficient time to avoid a collision at the Crossing. Mr. Darryl Murray, the Service Manager for Amtrak, testified that he regularly operated trains over the Crossing from 1974 until 1986 with the Seaboard Coastline Railroad, and from 1986 until 1991 with Amtrak. Since 1991, Mr. Murray has directly supervised Amtrak train crews that operate over the Crossing. Mr. Murray testified there are other crossings that are just as busy as the Crossing. He admitted that the Crossing would be safer in the future because the two western-most tracks have been removed. However, according to Mr. Murray, the Crossing is one of the most dangerous railroad crossings that he has encountered during his railroad career. According to Mr. Murray, a crossing accident involving an Amtrak passenger train traveling 40 miles per hour at Old Kings Road could result in serious personal injury or death to the motor vehicle occupants and train crew; derailment of the train; and injuries to Amtrak passengers due to the emergency braking application of the train. In the early to mid 1990's, Mr. Murray personally investigated an accident involving an Amtrak train and a passenger vehicle at the Crossing, which resulted in serious personal injuries to the motorist. Mr. Kevin Carter, a manager for Resource Logistics International ("RLI"), testified that if the Crossing were re-opened, RLI trucks carrying 80,000 pounds of aluminum would use it during transport. Mr. Carter has seen one or two of his truck drivers go around the gates at the Crossing and was aware of other trucks going around the lowered gates. Mr. Carter has disciplined at least one of his drivers for driving around railroad crossing gates in the down position. CSXT also presented the testimony of experienced railroad employees who have worked in the Moncrief Yard at the Crossing on a daily basis for many years. CSXT employees testified that, due to its location in the middle of an active switching yard, the Crossing is the most dangerous railroad crossing in Jacksonville, Florida. In addition to motor vehicle accidents at the Crossing, the evidence established a serious safety hazard involving pedestrians. Prior to its closing in 1998, pedestrians regularly climbed between freight cars stopped at the Crossing in order to avoid extended train blockages. Additionally, pedestrians regularly placed their bicycles over or under the coupling mechanism that connects railroad cars while attempting to climb between railroad cars. Several of the accidents at the Crossing involved serious injuries to pedestrians who were trapped between freight cars when the train suddenly moved. The number of pedestrians at the Crossing has decreased since its closure. There have been no accidents at the Old Kings Road crossing since its closure in 1998. If the Crossing were closed, protective measures could be taken to more effectively discourage trespasser access, including cul-de-sacs, road barriers, fencing and signage. COJ has determined there is sufficient land to build cul-de-sacs at the Crossing. On the other hand, it is impossible to completely block pedestrians from using the Crossing if they are intent on doing so. In an effort to assess safety hazards at the Crossing, COJ presented evidence about the FDOT Safety Index. FDOT uses the safety index to determine the prioritization of upgrades for crossings that do not have automatic gates and signal lights. FDOT does not utilize the safety index for its closure analysis. The FDOT safety index for prioritizing crossing-warning device upgrades does not determine the dangerousness of a railroad crossing. The federal government requires FDOT to create the safety index annually. From among the top 800 crossings, FDOT determines which crossings receive funding for improvement of warning devices. The maximum protection that FDOT currently permits is flashing lights and automatic gates. Crossings that rank in the top 800 on the safety index and that already have lights and gates do not receive funding because no further improvement is available. In effect, the safety index report serves only to identify problematic crossings. With annual funding of only approximately $5 million, FDOT improves about 30 crossings per year. Although the Crossing had automatic gates and flashing signal lights before they were disconnected in July 1998, the current FDOT Safety Index indicates that the Crossing has a safety index rank of 561 out of 4500 railroad crossings in the state. This does not mean that FDOT considers 560 other crossings to have greater priority for upgrades than the Crossing. Because the safety index report continues to assign a high rank to the Crossing, which already has lights and gates, the only way FDOT can make the Crossing safer is to close it. Even so, using the FDOT safety index ranking and correct factual assumptions, the safety index number for the Crossing is approximately 50, which is less than the marginal safety level index number of 60 set by FDOT. FDOT guidelines indicate that a crossing should be considered for improvements at a safety level index of 60. FDOT uses a separate program to consider overpass construction for crossings. As stated above, the low traffic count and the availability of the Edgewood Avenue overpass less than two miles away means that the Crossing does not warrant the expenditures required for construction of an overpass. The automatic gates at the Crossing are part of a two-quadrant gate system. Petitioners have proposed that four-quadrant gates and a median be constructed in order to deter motorists from going around the gates. The appeal of a four-quadrant gate system is that it blocks both lanes of travel on both sides of a crossing. A four-quadrant system discourages more people from running the gates than does a two-quadrant gate system. However, people at times run four-quadrant gates and would be likely to do so at the Crossing. An activated four-quadrant gate system could block a vehicle attempting to get out of the Crossing. FDOT uses two-quadrant gate systems because they leave the exit from a crossing unobstructed. An exit for vehicles at the Crossing is especially important because of the unusual width and the constant activation of the gates by switching trains. A four-quadrant gate system would neither redress the extremely dangerous conditions at the crossing nor change the incentives for people to run the gates. FDOT does not currently permit four-quadrant gates at crossings like the one at issue here. Additionally, the Federal Highway Administration has not authorized installation of four- quadrant gates as a standard recommended practice. Other states do use four-quadrant gates on an experimental basis. Finally, installing a four-quadrant gate system at the crossing would cost between $500,000 and $1,500,000. Necessity, Convenience and Utilization of Remaining Routes Where Practical In the area of the Crossing, Old Kings Road connects New Kings Road and Edgewood Avenue. The intersection of Old Kings Road and New Kings Road is located at a distance of approximately 100 yards to the east of the Crossing. New Kings Road is a four-lane highway that curves at its intersection with Old Kings Road, going east through the neighborhood of Grand Park and becoming Kings Road and US 23. Kings Road is a thoroughfare to downtown COJ in this direction. In the other direction, New Kings Road runs north, paralleling the CSXT mainline track, which is to the west for some distance. In this area, New Kings Road forms the western end of the Grand Park neighborhood. As New Kings Road runs north, it becomes U.S. 1/23 about one-half mile from the Old Kings Road intersection. New Kings Road is also a heavily traveled four-lane highway. On the west side of the Crossing, 20th Street West and St. Clair Street, both of which are two-lane streets, dead end into Old Kings Road, with 20th Street West running west and St. Clair Street running south. Further to the west, Old Kings Road intersects with Edgewood Avenue, a four-lane state highway running north and south. The neighborhood directly to the west and south of Old Kings Road is known as the Paxon community. Running north from the intersection with Old Kings Road, Edgewood Avenue intersects New Kings Road (US 1/23). Just before this intersection, Edgewood Avenue separates from grade and becomes a viaduct (overpass) that crosses the CSXT mainline tracks. Traveling this route and then turning south on New Kings Road, a vehicle would reach the intersection of New Kings Road and Old Kings Road. If one is located on the west side of the Crossing, and the Crossing is closed, this route is the shortest distance to the east side of the Crossing. The distance going around the Crossing from west to east (clockwise), starting at the intersection of Old Kings Road and St. Clair Street and finishing at the intersection of Old Kings Road and New Kings Road is approximately 3.26 miles. Going in the opposite direction (counterclockwise) the distance is approximately 3.28 miles. These distances were calculated as averages after making six vehicle travel runs in a clockwise direction (west to east) and five vehicle travel runs in a counterclockwise direction (east to west) respectively. Traveling around the Crossing in a southern direction, either from west to east or east to west would require going all the way to the McQuade Street crossing, or to the Beaver Street viaduct, just south of McQuade Street. The southern route involves distances substantially in excess of those along the Edgewood Avenue - New Kings Road route to the north. All of the major interstates in Jacksonville can be conveniently reached via New Kings Road or Edgewood Avenue. Motorists traveling west on Old Kings Road over the Crossing would have to cross several other railroad crossings in order to reach Edgewood Avenue. In addition to the significant train blockages at the Crossing, significant train blockages exist at Norfolk Southern’s Old Kings Road crossing due to the proximity of the crossing to Norfolk Southern’s Simpson Yard. A little over one-half mile to the west of the Crossing, and to the north and south thereof, the Norfolk Southern mainline tracks run parallel to the CSXT tracks and also cross Old Kings Road. The Norfolk Southern tracks cross St. Clair Street, 20th Street West and Old Kings Road, going south to north. Immediately north of Old Kings Road those tracks comprise the southern end of Norfolk Southern's Simpson Yard, a switching yard like Moncrief Yard. Norfolk Southern trains at times block St. Clair Street, 20th Street West, and Old Kings Road all at the same time. When this occurs, with the Crossing closed, the area inside the triangle formed by Old Kings Road, the Norfolk Southern tracks, and St. Clair Street becomes landlocked, making ingress and egress to the area impossible. Norfolk Southern trains block the Norfolk Southern crossing across Old Kings Road approximately six out of 24 hours a day. CSXT trains block the Crossing on an average of at least nine or more hours a day and as much as 12 hours a day. Trains block Old Kings Road, 20th Street West, and St. Clair Street all three simultaneously approximately nine times a day, for periods ranging between 1.29 minutes and 15 minutes, with an average blockage time of 6.5 minutes. On the high side, the triangle area might be completely blocked for as much as 2.25 hours per day total. On some occasions since the Crossing was closed, people within the triangle may have been unable to enter or leave the triangle for as much as 30 minutes or more at a time. This might have been the case one or more times a day. It is also true that the total blockage would be somewhat decreased with the Crossing open because it would provide an additional entrance or exit. However, even with the Crossing open, trains will still block the triangle area for approximately 40 percent of the time out of a 24-hour day. Motorists using the alternate route over New Kings Road and Edgewood Avenue would encounter one railroad crossing on New Kings Road. Trains block the New Kings Road crossing for up to 30 minutes at a time, less than one hour of total blockage during an average 12-hour period from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Approximately 2000 to 3000 people live in the Grand Park community on the east side of the Crossing. The same number of people live in the Paxon community on the west side of the Crossing. These residents oppose the closing of the Crossing for many reasons, including the following: (a) People from Grand Park on the east side of the Crossing participate in community activities such as Little League Baseball at the Joe Hammond Center near the west side of the Crossing; (b) Children in Grand Park go to school at Paxon Middle School and Paxon High School; and (c) Grocery stores, stores such as Home Depot, and other shopping facilities are located on the west side of the Crossing. If the Crossing remains closed, these people will suffer some inconvenience in having to travel the alternate route over New Kings Road and Edgewood Avenue. However, the Edgewood Avenue overpass on the alternate route provides the Paxon and Grand Park residents access to either side of the Crossing without crossing any of railroad tracks along Old Kings Road. If a motorist traveled a loop from the east side to the west side of the Crossing using the alternate route over New Kings Road and Edgewood Avenue, the total amount of travel time would be between five and 10 minutes depending on the time of day and the amount of traffic. In order to calculate the additional burden on motorists using the alternate route, a reduction would have to be taken for the amount of time that a motorist would have to travel 6,746 feet from the Crossing to Edgewood Avenue. FDOT grades levels of road service from "A" to "F", with "A" being the highest level of service. Roads with an "A" level of service have the ability to handle considerably more vehicle traffic without causing delays in traffic movement. The level of service for New Kings Road and Edgewood Avenue is an "A" level of service. Therefore, the alternate route is in good condition and able to accommodate the additional traffic volume that results from the closure of the Crossing. Due to the significant train blockages at the CSXT and Norfolk Southern Old Kings Road crossings, the alternate route over New Kings Road and Edgewood Avenue is a more reliable route for motorists. The alternate route over New Kings Road and Edgewood Avenue takes significantly less travel time for motorists than Old Kings Road if the CSXT or Norfolk Southern crossings on Old Kings Road are blocked by train traffic. It is undisputed that a substantial volume of rail traffic utilizes the CSXT tracts at Old Kings Road. However, the trains in the Moncrief Yard are no longer than they were in the 1960s. In fact, there are probably 500 less train cars in the yard and traveling across the Crossing than there were back then. CSXT's business operation will not changed or be affected regardless of whether the Crossing is open or closed. CSXT has no business necessity to have the Crossing closed, apart from its dangerousness. It is true that the closing of the Crossing will result in some inconvenience to three residential homes and two businesses, Tremron and RLI, located within the triangle formed by the Norfolk Southern mainline, Old Kings Road and St. Claire Street. However, the triangle existed before these homes were constructed and before the businesses were established. Anyone locating a home or business in the triangle area between two railroad yards and two railroad tracks knew or should have known that train blockages were going to be a problem. Prior to the closing of the Crossing, the homeowners in the triangle used St. Clair Street as their primary access route. They used the Crossing mainly when the St. Clair Street crossing was blocked. Tremron purchased its St. Clair Street business premises in June 2000, after the Crossing had been closed for almost two years. Prior to the purchase of the business premises, Tremron represented to the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission that it had performed an initial feasibility study and concluded that the current roadways and public utilities were adequate to meet the demands for the new facility. Tremron, which manufactures cement pavers, has 10 to 40 trucks entering and leaving the company's premises in a day. If the Crossing were open and not blocked by trains, the best access to I-95 for Tremron's trucks would be through the Crossing. Additionally, because the Crossing is closed, Tremron's employees have problems with access to and from work when the triangle is sealed. Tremron performed surveys of train traffic at the Norfolk Southern St. Clair Street and 20th Street West crossings in October and November 2000, and the Crossing in July 2001. The surveys measured the maximum amount of time the St. Clair Street crossing was blocked by train traffic and not actual vehicle delays at the crossing. A COJ study recorded actual vehicle delays using a proper methodology at ten crossings in the area of Old Kings Road. However, this study did not include a survey of vehicle delays at the Norfolk Southern St. Clair Street crossing. CSXT studied train blockages at the Norfolk Southern St. Clair Street crossing on June 13 and 14, 2001. The results of the CSXT surveys provide persuasive evidence that no significant train delays exist at St. Claire Street. After the date of the Tremron train delay studies at the St. Clair Street crossing, Tremron’s President, Hugh Caron, reached a cooperative arrangement with Norfolk Southern whereby the railroad agreed to reduce train blockages at St. Clair Street. Mr. Caron and local triangle residents, Thomas Miller, Milton Holland and Rebecca Jenkins, testified that the cooperative arrangement was working in a satisfactory manner at the time of the final hearing. If the Crossing was open, Tremron and RLI trucks might be able to look down Old Kings Road to see if a train was blocking the Crossing before heading in that direction. But if a train blocks the tracks as the trucks approach the Crossing, they cannot turn around. In the event of a train blockage, RLI's trucks can use an alternate route through the Norfolk Southern Simpson Yard to circumvent the blocked crossing on an emergency basis. Additionally, Milton Holland, one of the three homeowners who reside in the triangle area, also uses the alternate route through the Norfolk Southern Simpson Yard to circumvent the Crossing when it is blocked. RLI is a trucking business that transports building material. It ships and receives material such as steel coils and plywood to and from the Norfolk Southern boxcars. It also transports metal containers to and from the two major Jacksonville seaports. RLI's facility on Old Kings Road serves as a warehouse for these shipments. RLI's tractor-trailers make 16 to 20 round trips a day from the warehouse to the seaports. Prior to July 1998, the tractor-trailers regularly used the Crossing when it was not blocked by train traffic. Even so, the RLI trucks and personnel were trapped within the triangle every now and then. With the closing of the Crossing, RLI's employees and trucks are trapped within the triangle on a more regular basis. RLI has not missed any shipments since the closure of the Crossing. Mr. Carter testified that, at this point in time, it did not make a difference to him whether the Old Kings Road Crossing remained closed. Centurion’s President, Harold Shafer, testified that none of his four automobile transport businesses, including Centurion, were impacted by the closure of the Crossing. According to Mr. Shafer, he owns a business in the triangle area known as Vehicle Transport, Inc., which builds racking systems for transporting automobiles in containers. Vehicle Transport, Inc., was not operating and had no employees at the time of the final hearing. Mr. Shafer is planning to reopen Vehicle Transport, Inc., contingent upon the business being a successful bidder on several contracts. In that event, Vehicle Transport, Inc., would employ 25 to 30 employees at the St. Clair facility. If Vehicle Transport, Inc., were to reopen for business on St. Claire Street with the Crossing closed, the company would suffer a loss in labor efficiency. However, Mr. Shafer's primary concern would be the occasional unavailability of emergency fire and rescue service, not access for his business resulting from the closing of the Crossing. Petitioners' expert witness, Geoff Pappas, presented evidence of an economic impacts study, concluding that the businesses located within the triangle had suffered economic losses due to the Crossing's closure. Rather than examining the business records of these companies, Mr. Pappas based his analysis on estimated projected losses due to the cost of additional motor fuel consumed by commercial trucks accessing the businesses via the alternate route and due to the cost of paying employees for lost time spent waiting at one of the Norfolk Southern crossings. Mr. Pappas opined that RLI's fuel expense has increased by $3,000 per year since the closing of the Crossing. He concluded that the company has experienced over $55,200 per year in lost labor because of the time the employees spend waiting on trains to clear the tracks. According to Mr. Papas, other trucking companies making deliveries to RLI's facility have also incurred significant financial losses. As to Tremron, Mr. Pappas testified that the company loses approximately $42,000 per year in labor efficiency because the employees spend so much time waiting for the tracks to clear within the triangle. Tremron pays outside truck drivers to deliver its products by the truckload; therefore, Mr. Pappas asserted that firms delivering to Tremron have incurred approximately $13,450 in additional fuel expenditures per year because the Crossing is closed. Mr. Pappas calculated these economic losses for Tremron beginning in 1998 even though Tremron did not open its business facility until 2000. In support for his projected fuel consumption cost analysis, Mr. Pappas assumed that each and every truck would have accessed the triangle area via the Crossing if it had been open. Mr. Pappas also assumed that each and every truck used the alternate route because of the Crossing's closure. On cross-examination, Mr. Pappas had to concede the following: (a) Any truck going to or coming from Interstate 10, Interstate 295, or going to northbound Interstate 95 would access the triangle area using a crossing other than the one at issue here; (b) An origin and destination study needs to be conducted to accurately determine the percentage of commercial traffic actually utilizing the alternate route; (c) If an origin and destination study had been conducted, it would have shown that the trucks would have used the Norfolk Southern crossing at least some of the time; and (d) The analysis did not consider the impact of regular blockages at the Crossing. Mr. Pappas admitted that his analysis was "a last minute review" that could have been "much more accurate." In support of his lost wages cost analysis, Mr. Papas estimated that every employee of each business would make four trips into or out of the triangle area every working day of the year. He estimated that each and every trip would incur a 15-minute delay due to train blockages on the Norfolk Southern line. Thus, Mr. Pappas concluded that each and every employee was estimated to lose one hour every working day. By multiplying the estimated number of employees of each business by the estimated average hourly wage paid by that business, then doubling that amount to account for "indirect wage losses," Mr. Pappas estimated the dollar amount of wages lost daily by each business. By multiplying that product by the number of working days in a year, Mr. Pappas estimated the annual loss to each business. Mr. Pappas's lost wages cost analysis assumed that each and every trip into or out of the triangle area would have been made via the Crossing had it been open. He further assumed that each business paid their employees for the time they spent waiting at a rail crossing coming to or leaving work. On cross-examination, Mr. Pappas conceded the following: (a) Employees would not be paid for time spent waiting at a crossing after leaving work; (b) Employees might not leave work for lunch; and (c) Such trips would have to be deducted from the analysis. There is no doubt that RLI and Tremron have incurred an adverse financial impact due to the closure of the Crossing. However, for the reasons set forth above, Mr. Pappas's cost analysis studies and his testimony in support thereof, cannot be relied upon to accurately reflect that impact. Pedestrian Convenience It is undisputed that the Crossing was not designed for pedestrian or bicycle use. Nevertheless, persuasive evidence indicates that pedestrians and bicyclists used the Crossing before it was closed. They have continued to cross the tracks since CSXT removed the crossing roadway in July 1998. One survey indicates that as many as six pedestrians used the Crossing during a 24-hour period in 2001. Other evidence indicates that at least 15 pedestrians used the Crossing during an eight-hour period in 2001. These pedestrians include a lot of Grand Park community residents who do not own motor vehicles and therefore need to walk or rely on other means of transportation. It would take over an hour for a brisk walker to walk the proposed alternate route around the Crossing, a distance of 3.26 miles. The alternate route is also dangerous for pedestrians because both Edgewood Avenue and New Kings Road (U.S. 1/23) are four-lane highways with no sidewalks. Additionally, the overpass on Edgewood Avenue has cement barriers that block off and reduce the size of the sidewalks so that they are impassible. Thus a pedestrian must walk right next to the auto lanes on the viaduct. Public bus service provided by the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) connects the neighborhoods on both sides of the Crossing. Some time shortly before the final hearing, a CSXT witness followed two buses that connect the Paxon community and the Grand Park community on the eastern side of the Edgewood Avenue overpass. Additionally, CSXT and COJ provided exhibits which clearly show that pedestrians on both sides of the Crossing have reasonable access to bus transportation over the alternate route, on weekdays and weekends, without having to walk an unreasonable distance. The pedestrian safety hazards at the Crossing substantially outweigh any limited pedestrian inconvenience that would result from the closing of the Crossing. Excessive Restriction to Emergency Type Vehicles Resulting from Closing The Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department naturally has some concerns that it will be unable to provide timely emergency services in the triangle area when it is sealed. This is more likely to happen with the Crossing closed. Old Kings Road has always been an area of limited access for fire and rescue crews due to the amount of train blockages at the Crossing. The response time of fire and rescue services could be reduced by one minute if the Crossing were open and not blocked by a train. One minute can mean the difference between life and death in an emergency situation. Prior to its closing, emergency vehicles were dispatched from the east side of the Crossing (from fire and rescue Station 7) to cover emergency calls on the west side of the Crossing. Since the closure of the Crossing, the Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department has modified its response procedures to handle fire and rescue calls for the west side of the Crossing by placing a new fire and rescue station (Station 17) located on Huron Street, west of and less than two miles from the Crossing. Huron Street connects with St. Claire Street south of the Norfolk Southern crossing. Stations 7 and 17 cannot maximize their potential by providing overlapping fire and rescue services because of the closure of the Crossing. Instead, the two stations serve as backup units for each other. The change in fire and rescue response procedures was required in part due to the closure of the Crossing. It also was necessary to meet increasing demand for service on the west side of the Crossing and to ensure emergency service when there were simultaneous multiple calls. RLI and Tremron also are concerned that emergency services will not arrive timely if the Crossing is closed and the triangle area is sealed. RLI has 16 to 18 employees. In August 2001, a Norfolk Southern train was blocking 20th Street West and St. Clair Street when one of RLI's employees required emergency medical services. Norfolk Southern had to break the train so that rescue services could answer the emergency call. The rescue response time on that occasion was 12 minutes. Tremron has 12 employees. Sometime in 2001, Tremron had to call for emergency medical help for an employee who was experiencing an asthma panic attack. The emergency response vehicle took 30 minutes to respond to Tremron's facility. The record does not indicate whether a train sealed the triangle area at that time. Despite the above-referenced incidents, the average response times for the three fire and rescue zones in the area of the Crossing have significantly improved since its closure in 1998. For example, fire and rescue Zone 5370 includes the triangle area. The average response time for fire response in Zone 5370 was 6.1 minutes in 1997 and 4.7 minutes in 1999 and 2000. The average response time for emergency medical response in Zone 5370 was 8.6 minutes in 1997, 5.7 minutes in 1999, and 6.2 minutes in 2000. The Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department considers six minutes to be the optimum response time for emergency medical response. Regardless of the closing of the Crossing, there may be times when fire and rescue vehicles need to request that a train be broken in order to access the triangle area. While fire and rescue personnel prefer that the Crossing be open, any restriction to fire and rescue vehicles as a result of the closure of the Crossing has not been and will not be excessive. The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office has good overlapping vehicle coverage on both sides of the Crossing. There was no evidence presented that police calls have been or would be delayed as the result of the closing of the Crossing. There is evidence that the police do not patrol along Old Kings Road as often as they did before the Crossing was closed. Nevertheless, any restrictions to police patrol vehicles as a result of the closure of the Crossing have not been excessive. I. Effect of Closing on Rail Operations And Expenses Although CSXT has no business necessity to keep the Crossing closed, crossing accidents impact the railroad's operations. This occurs when train crews are relieved from duty and lose time from work dealing with the emotional effects or psychological trauma caused by witnessing serious accidents. Additionally, CSXT has significant liability exposure for crossing accidents at the Crossing, including physical and emotional injury claims brought by motorists, passengers, train crews and pedestrians based upon the proximity of the Crossing to the Moncrief Yard. So far, CSXT has paid approximately $500,000 for claims arising out of accidents at the Old Kings Road crossing, exclusive of attorney’s fees and costs. Amtrak has paid approximately $100,000.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FDOT enter a final order granting CSXT a permit to close the Crossing. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 11th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: William Graessle, Esquire Winegeart & Graessle, P.A. 219 North Newman Street Fourth Floor Jacksonville, Florida 32202-3222 Eric L. Leach, Esquire Milton, Leach, D'Andrea & Ritter, P.A. 815 Main Street, Suite 200 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Scott A. Matthews, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ernst D. Mueller, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Harold A. Shafer Centurion Auto Transport 5912 New Kings Road Jacksonville, Florida 32209 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
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
Recommendation Dismiss the application to open a public at-grade crossing at Country Club Boulevard in the Citrus Springs Community in Citrus County, Florida without prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Shroads, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 George L. Waas, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Gordan S. Burleson, Sr. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Livingston, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida
The Issue 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
Recommendation Close existing railroad crossing at Citrus Springs Boulevard and Seaboard Coastline Mile-post 763. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of November, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Gordan S. Burleson, Sr. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Livingston, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida James L. Shroads, Esquire 2350 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
Findings Of Fact The parties to this case filed a joint Stipulation of Facts by which it was shown that the County filed an application with the Florida Department in September of 1976 to cross the branch line of the Railway from Moultrie Junction (St. Augustine) to East Palatka, Florida at the Railway's Mile Post 44 plus 1780.3 feet. The crossing is more clearly shown by attachments to the County's application and the Railway's Plan 5O (MP 44 + 1780.3') of November 3rd, 1976, which was attached to the Stipulation of Facts, both of which are incorporated into these Findings. The proposed crossing will be by a county roadway to be non as Tillman Ridge Road, and will be primarily used by garbage trucks or other vehicles ceding access to the County's sanitary landfill. The Railway has currently scheduled two trains per week in each direction over the proposed crossing, but could handle additional regularly scheduled or extra trains as warranted. Train speed limit is 40 MPH. The County roadway will curve to the right on the north side of the Railway crossing. The Railway and the County have signed a contract calling for the installation of train activated flashing lights, gates and bells to be installed at the crossing. The County executed the agreement after the County Commission unanimously authorized execution at its public meeting of January 11th, 1977. A copy of that portion of the minutes of the County Commission meeting is attached and incorporated into this Stipulation. All of the parties to this proceeding agree that the crossing will be adequately protected by the installation of these devices. The Stipulation of Facts and the Motion for Entry of Recommended Order are incorporated as a part of this Order.
Recommendation It is recommended that the permit be granted and that the crossing be opened subject to the type of crossing protection equipment agreed on by the parties. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of , 1977.
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 for an at grade vehicle railroad crossing permit should be issued to the City of Holly Hill by the Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact The City of Holly Hill, Florida, filed an application with DOT for an at grade railroad crossing permit on Tenth Street at Milepost 107+1513', in the city of Holly Hill. The DOT denied the City's application by letter dated November 27, 1991, which enclosed the Department's intent to deny the permit. The City petitioned and received a hearing to consider its application. The City of Holly Hill is located due north of the City of Daytona Beach on the east coast of the state of Florida. It stretches west approximately a mile from the Halifax River, and runs north for approximately two miles from the northern boundaries of the City of Daytona Beach. Tenth Street, where the proposed railroad crossing would be located, is a local street running east and west in the City of Holly Hill, Florida. West of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, Tenth Street connects with Center Avenue and continues further west to connect with Nova Road, both of which are major north/south connectors. To the east of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, Tenth Street runs less than one block and terminates at its intersection with US 1, the major north/south arterial road in Holly Hill. Immediately east of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks in the vicinity of Tenth Street, the City of Holly Hill maintains Holly Land Park, a major recreational area in downtown Holly Hill. Immediately to the west of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, the City of Holly Hill maintains a nature trail and facilities related to its public works department. The City seeks the permit for an at grade crossing alleging that (1) a large number of pedestrians are illegally crossing the track and have persisted in doing so notwithstanding warnings and citations; and (2) the City feels that opening a crossing at Tenth Street would relieve bad traffic congestion existing on Eleventh Street just north of Tenth at Eleventh's intersection with US 1. Video tapes and the observations of police officers of the City of Holly Hill establish a significant level of pedestrian traffic by adults and children over the railroad tracks between the western and eastern ends of Tenth Street. This practice is very dangerous. Some of the pedestrians walk their bicycles over the railroad tracks at this location. The majority of the young people crossing the tracks in this vicinity are moving east to utilize the facilities in Holly Land Park or moving west to go to the middle school and grammar school located respectively at the intersections of Center Avenue and Walker Street and Center Avenue and Fifteenth Street. This is a popular route because of the heavy vehicle traffic on Eleventh Street and Eighth Street. Warnings, citations, and patrols have not halted the illegal crossing of the tracks. Eleventh Street is located 1300 feet to the north of Tenth Street and also runs east and west from the Halifax River westward to beyond Interstate 95. Plans call for the development of an interchange at the intersection of Interstate 95 and Eleventh Street. Eleventh Street appears to be the only street in downtown Holly Hill which moves directly west in this manner. From Nova Road east to US 1, Eleventh Street runs parallel to and north of a large drainage canal. Two shopping centers are located at the intersection of Eleventh Street and Nova Road. Eleventh Street is so close to this drainage feature that pedestrian walks on the southern side of Eleventh Street were removed. Because of this drainage structure, Eleventh Street cannot be inexpensively widened. To the south of Tenth Street 1320 feet, Eighth Street runs east and west from the Halifax River to Nova Road. Both Eleventh and Eighth Streets are two-way streets along their entire length. The City bases it petition to open the crossing upon traffic congestion caused by east bound traffic on Eleventh Street seeking to turn left on US 1, and by north bound traffic on US 1 seeking to turn left onto Eleventh Street when Eleventh Street is blocked by rail traffic. The I-95/Eleventh Street interchange will increase traffic congestion on Eleventh Street. The City asserts that opening the proposed crossing would alleviate this congestion because traffic using Eleventh Street would then use Tenth Street. The traffic count on Eleventh, Tenth, and Eighth Streets was measured by the county. The traffic on Eleventh Street was 10,744; on Tenth Street was 1,019; and on Sixth Street was 6,153. According to a traffic projection run by the county traffic operations supervisor, 1,000 vehicles would be diverted from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street if a vehicle at grade crossing were opened at Tenth Street. Although this projection is suspect because it was made without any origin and destination surveys being done, the shift of 1,000 vehicles from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street is negligible in terms of its present and projected impact on Eleventh Street. It was uncontraverted that a ground level pedestrian crossing with adequate gates and signals would permit pedestrians to cross the railroad tracks quickly and therefore reduce their exposure to train/bicycle accidents. (T- 81,135.) Opening an at grade crossing on Tenth Street would create a greater potential for car/train accidents by increasing the exposure of vehicle traffic to railroad traffic. This was also uncontraverted. The fire station is currently located in the back of City Hall which is located immediately across US 1 from Holly Land Park. Plans exist to move the fire station from its present current location to a location in the vicinity of the Public Works Department along Tenth Avenue. The public library which is currently located at Holly Land Park affronting on US 1 may be relocated to the old school building located south of the city hall. Movement from the fire- station at its proposed location would be no better or worse than it is now because Tenth Street does not extend east across US 1. Emergency equipment will have to use Eighth Street or Eleventh Street to go east, and these streets are also the best routes west. The proposed crossing is not necessary based upon the traffic studies prepared by the City. Assuming the shift of 1,000 cars from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street, this would not warrant the expense and the potential hazard generated by permitting the proposed railroad crossing. It was uncontraverted that the best way to solve the congestion problem on Eleventh Street would be to widen it. However, it was universally acknowledged that this would be very expensive. While evidence is contradictory, the most credible testimony supports using one-way pairs on Eleventh and Eighth Streets as a low cost interim measure to improve traffic flow along the arterial routes. (T-112,145 et seq., and 173.) In addition to the crossings located at Eleventh and Eighth Streets, there are also crossing located at next to through streets south of Eighth, and at Fromich Street north of Eleventh. There would be more than five public crossings located within one mile of railroad track if a crossing were opened at Tenth Street.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered approving a pedestrian at grade crossing at Tenth Street in the City of Holly Hill, Volusia County, Florida; and That the Petition for a public at grade vehicular railroad crossing at Tenth Street in the City of Holly Hill, Volusia County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-0942 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Petitioner's Recommended Order Paragraphs 1, 2, 8 Recommended order paragraph no. 4 Paragraph 3, 5, 7, 10 Recommended order paragraph no. 7 Paragraph 4 Recommended order paragraph no. 8 Paragraph 6 Rejected, Data in Paragraph is more credible Paragraph 9 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 11 Immaterial Paragraph 12 Cumulative Paragraphs 13, 14 Immaterial Paragraph 15 Contrary to the fact that Tenth Street ends at US 1 Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 Contrary to more credible evidence Paragraph 19 .027 represents one train/car collision every four years. If you are in the car, that is significant. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 All these improvements do not establish the necessity for the proposed crossing and appear to be counter to good land use and traffic planning. Paragraph 26 No credible evidence to support this. Paragraph 27 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 28 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 29 Immaterial Paragraph 30 "de facto" crossings don't exist Paragraph 31 Immaterial Paragraph 32, 33, 34, 35 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 36 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 37 Speculative Paragraph 38 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 39 Paragraph 9 Respondent's Recommended Order Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1, 2 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 6, 10, 11 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 13, 14 COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Edward F. Simpson, Jr., Esquire Randal A. Hayes, Esquire Moore, Wood, Simpson, Correy, McKinnon and Vulkeja Post Office Box 305 Ormond Beach, FL 32175 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing by new roadway construction at the intersection of Berryhill Road and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad SYA 877-1610' South, Pasco County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail/ highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Robert K. Reese of Pasco County, County Commission District IV, Florida. The crossing location is in the municipality of Holiday. The local popular name of the street or roadway is Berryhill Roadway. The crossing is across the tracks of the Seaboard Coast Line railroad. The railroad mile post distance and direction is SYA 877-1610' south. The crossing would serve a subdivision known as Forest Hills East. The only entrance into the Forest Hills East Subdivision is a crossing by way of Elizabeth Avenue. This crossing is unsignalized and requires vehicular traffic to cross two spur line railroad tracks. There is a third possible entrance into the subdivision through a crossing known as Tumbleweeds but this entrance is undeveloped and is not now being utilized. The Forest Hills East Subdivision projects 250 single family dwellings in the development. There are no current plans to build condominium or apartment structures. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad previously approved water and sewer crossings underneath the railroad tracks at the Berryhill proposed crossing. There are deceleration and acceleration lanes and paving on the state road S-595 which leads up to the subdivision. There is an estimated three trains per week which would utilize the crossing and there is an unobstructed field of view from the center of the railroad track 1500 feet to the south and 700 feet to the north. On the proposed crossing proceeding in the western direction there is am available visibility of 89 feet south and 120 feet north with a train proceeding at 15 miles per hour. After public hearing in 1974 involving this same proposed crossing in which Dreher Construction Company, the developer of the subdivision, was the applicant, the Respondent, Department of Transportation, directed an issuance of the permit finding need but the issuance of the permit was conditioned upon the installation and maintenance of automatically operated signals consisting of flashing lights and ringing bells at the proposed crossing as the required safety measure. No permit was granted. The roadway has been built and access to the subdivision across the tracks is now complete except for signalization. Because of no signalization the entrance is now blocked for ingress or egress although at least two new homes have been constructed in the subdivision. The cost of the installation of the signalization which had been recommended by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, in 1974 and is still recommended, is between $30,000 and $40,000 with additional maintenance costs. The cost of the signalization of wooden cross bucks, stop signs and speed bumps with minimal maintenance costs is obviously much less although no evidence was submitted as to actual cost. The present applicant for the Berryhill crossing, the Pasco County Commission, District IV, represented by its Transportation-chairman Robert K. Reese requests that the permit for the proposed Berryhill crossing be granted without the requirement that electronic signalization be required. A need was cited for an additional crossing to serve the residents of the subdivision in addition to normal travel. Additional needs were cited by the fire department and hospital emergency vehicles. It was noted that many of the residents are retirees and that at times the one existing crossing is blocked by trains across the track. The applicant states that it is unwilling to expend county monies for the recommended electronic signalization. The developer of the subdivision is unwilling to install and maintain the electronic signalization. A large number of the residents of the subdivision want the proposed crossing opened immediately and at the hearing indicated that they felt that the roadside flashing lights were unnecessary and that they thought the cross buck and stop signs were all that is necessary. From a personal viewing of the Forest Hills East Subdivision and the crossing available to the residents therein, together with the evidence submitted, the testimony of parties who have substantial interest in the proposed crossing and after listening to the oral arguments of counsels at the hearing and the briefs submitted thereafter, the Hearing Officer further finds: There is an undisputed need for a crossing in addition to the present crossing to serve the subdivision. The present crossing is less safe than the proposed railroad crossing would be although both crossings are needed to serve the subdivision. The normal number of trains trafficking at the proposed Berryhill crossing is three times a week with a maximum scheduled speed of the train at 20 miles per hour. The crossing is needed and signalization of wooden cross arms and stop signs and speed zones would serve the public interest adequately although manual flagging of the train and the installation of flashing lights and ringing bells might be required at a future time. The need to the subdivision and the residents therein would be better served by opening the proposed Berryhill crossing inasmuch as it would give two entrances into the subdivision.
Recommendation Grant the permit for a period of one (1) year with wooden cross arms, a stop sign and traffic bumps as signalization and safety measures. Reevaluate after one year from date hereof. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. James Parker, Esquire Delzer, Edwards, Martin, Coulter & Parker Post Office Box 279 Port Richey, Florida 33568 Jeffrey H. Savlov, Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coast Lime Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 =================================================================
