Findings Of Fact The petitioners are in the process of constructing a rural connector road between State Road 11 and U. S. Highway 1 in Flagler County. This is to be a two-lane twenty (20) foot wide pavement secondary road with the right-of-way acquisition and construction costs being provided by secondary gasoline tax funds allocated to Flagler County. The county has provided the necessary rights-of-way for the project. The project, as designed, provides for a realignment of the existing road to afford a straight approach to its connection with U. S. Highway 1. This realignment will eliminate the existing railroad crossing that is presently signalized with passive signalization consisting of standard cross-buck signs. The closing of the crossing will also eliminate a hazardous condition due to the sharp angles involved in the highway alignment at the present crossing. The proposed crossing is to be approximately 600 feet north of the existing crossing. Provision has been allowed for ingress and egress to individuals living in the area. The proposed crossing will intersect with the railroad tracks almost perpendicularly. The railroad, at this location, consists of a single track. There are sixteen (16) freight trains scheduled per day with a maximum speed of 60 miles per hour. In the vicinity of the proposed crossing the railroad track is straight. There is a curve in the track approximately 700 feet north from the proposed crossing. As a part of the proposed crossing there is to be Type II signalization installed consisting of a train-activated cantilevered flashing lights and ringing bells. These cantilevered signals are to be mounted on roadside posts which will allow maximum shoulder clearance for a fixed object in accordance with current practice and still provide for two (2) flashing lights suspended directly over each driving lane. Traffic studies conducted by the Planning Section of the Department of Transportation reflect that at present approximately 87 vehicles per day use the existing crossing. It is anticipated that 100 vehicles per day will use the proposed crossing when it is opened and projections estimate that in twenty (20) years approximately 400 vehicles per day will use the crossing. State Road S-304 is not used as a school bus route at this time nor is it anticipated that this road will be used for school buses in the foreseeable future. Permits to open and to close the crossing as applied for should be granted.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Transportation ("Department") may issue a permit authorizing CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSXT") to close public-railroad highway- grade crossing 627445-K (the "Crossing") located at SE 222nd Street in Hawthorne, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department has authority over public railroad- highway grade crossings in Florida, including the authority to issue permits for the opening and closing of crossings. § 335.141(1)(a), Fla. Stat.2/ The Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") has an "Action Plan" to improve grade-crossing safety. A key element of that plan is the consolidation of redundant and unnecessary highway-rail grade crossings. The FRA's goal is for each state to reduce railroad crossings by 25 percent. The Department's criteria for closing railroad-highway grade crossings are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-57.012(2)(c), as follows: Closure of Public Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings. In considering an application to close a public railroad-highway grade crossing, the following criteria will apply: Safety. Necessity for rail and vehicle traffic. Alternate routes. Effect on rail operations and expenses. Excessive restriction to emergency type vehicles resulting from closure. Design of the grade crossing and road approaches. Presence of multiple tracks and their effect upon railroad and highway operations. On June 30, 2010, CSXT submitted a Railroad Grade Crossing Application seeking closure of the Crossing, based on the redundancy of the Crossing in relation to other available crossings. The Crossing is located at SE 222nd Street in Hawthorne. 222nd Street is a two-lane urban local road running north and south, beginning at 69th Avenue and ending at 75th Avenue. The street crosses CSXT railroad tracks between SE 73rd Avenue and 74th Lane in a north-south direction. The surrounding area consists of residences, a veterinary hospital, a city-owned park, and some small commercial uses. The railroad right-of-way at the Crossing is operated by CSXT. The Crossing includes a timber and asphalt surface over a single mainline track. It has no sidewalk and is designed for automobile use only. The rail speed limit at the Crossing is 20 to 25 miles per hour. Petitioner, Dr. Shane Henry, is the owner of the veterinary hospital near the Crossing and was the only testifying witness familiar with the actual movement of the trains at the Crossing. Dr. Henry credibly testified that their actual speed at the Crossing is no greater than 5 miles per hour. Two local trains pass through the Crossing three times per week. A Department traffic study showed that 53 vehicles crossed the track at the Crossing in a 24-hour weekday period. No school buses use the Crossing. The posted speed limit for vehicles at the Crossing is 10 miles per hour. There are no active warning signals such as flashing lights or crossbars at the Crossing. Reflective crossbuck signs have been installed at the Crossing to alert drivers that they are approaching a railroad track. Train crews are required to sound their horns in warning as they approach the Crossing. Approximately 264 feet to the east of the Crossing is another railroad crossing at U.S. 301, which is the main north- south thoroughfare in Hawthorne. U.S. 301 is a four-lane highway that is heavily traveled in comparison to SE 222nd Street. Approximately 475 feet to the west of the Crossing is another railroad crossing at SE 221st Street. Southeast 221st Street is a two-lane north-south connector for Hawthorne's business district. The railroad crossings at U.S. 301 and SE 221st Street have active signals with crossbars lowering and lights flashing when trains pass. The Department sent a diagnostic team to examine and evaluate the Crossing. The team recommended that the Crossing be closed as redundant to the safer crossings nearby. The Department presented the proposed closure to the Hawthorne City Commission at a public meeting on July 20, 2010. Dr. Henry attended the meeting and voiced his opposition to the closure. Dr. Henry's Lake Area Animal Hospital is located at the corner of U.S. 301 and 74th Lane. The animal hospital is open on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. A small city park is located across the Crossing from the animal hospital. Dr. Henry testified that he tells his clients to walk their pets to the park to calm them down. Clients needing stool or urine samples are also advised to walk their pets to the park while waiting. Dr. Henry testified that closing the Crossing would limit his clients' access to the park and force them onto U.S. 301, which is heavily traveled by vehicles. However, there are alternative places to walk animals near the hospital that would not force the clients directly onto U.S. 301, including a side yard of the hospital premises. Dr. Henry may consider these less calming for the animals than the park, but they do not appear to endanger the animals. In deciding whether to authorize the closure of the Crossing, the Department considered the seven criteria listed in rule 14-57.012(2)(c): safety; necessity for rail and vehicle traffic; alternate routes; effect on rail operations and expenses; excessive restrictions to emergency vehicles resulting from closure; design of the grade crossing and road approaches; and presence of multiple tracks and their effect on railroad and highway operations. These criteria were considered in light of the overall objective "to reduce the accident/incident frequency and severity at public railroad-highway grade crossings, and improve rail and motor vehicle operating efficiency." Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-57.012(1). As to the "safety" criterion, the Department's first consideration was the potential for collisions of vehicles and trains at the Crossing. The Department made the following credible findings concerning safety at the Crossing: The SE 222nd Street crossing is signalized with crossbucks only (i.e., passive signalization) without any active warning devices (i.e., lights and gates). Cautious drivers would stop at the subject crossing and look both ways along the track to determine whether a train is approaching and to estimate its speed. In the event that following vehicles do not anticipate such stops and/or fail to maintain safe-stopping distance, collisions may result. In addition, the presence of the crossing itself may cause non-train collisions. Exemplified by a driver stopping suddenly to avoid collision with an oncoming train, the driver may lose control of the vehicle and collide with a roadside object. These types of potential collisions would be avoided with the elimination of the crossing. Currently there are no recorded accidents at the crossing; however, the opportunity exists for collisions, train and non-train, when a crossing exists. Although accident history is taken into account, it is not the sole determining factor, in as much as the prospective crossing closure has relatively low vehicular use and, thereby, fewer accidents. An accident does not have to occur before considering a crossing closure. Janice Bordelon, a Department rail specialist, was a member of the Department's diagnostic team. At the final hearing, Ms. Bordelon testified that the timber and asphalt surface of the Crossing was in poor condition and could cause a driver to focus his attention on finding a smooth pathway rather than looking for oncoming trains. As to the "necessity for rail and vehicle traffic" and "alternate route" criteria, the Department concluded that the Crossing is not a necessity for rail or vehicular traffic because of the ready availability of alternate routes. The Department determined that there were alternate routes and parallel roads on each side of the Crossing, and residents, schools, emergency response, and businesses would not be negatively affected by the closure of the Crossing. Closure of the Crossing to vehicular traffic would have no effect on rail traffic. Florida guidelines for public crossing closures provide that closure should be considered where there are fewer than 3,000 vehicles per day using the crossing and where there are crossings located closer than one-half mile apart. As noted above, only 53 vehicles were recorded at the Crossing over a 24- hour weekday period. The Department determined that rerouting such a low volume of vehicles to other roads would not have a significant impact on the level of service of the alternate routes. The Department specifically considered Dr. Henry's objections and concluded as follows: A veterinarian clinic at the corner of 74th Lane and N. Main Street (US 301/SR 200) has stated that closure would require their clients to be rerouted onto N. Main Street (US 301/SR 200), a more hazardous route. However, a timing study of the location shows that clients visiting the clinic have a safe alternate by traveling one block south on SE 222nd Street to 75th Avenue and proceeding north on SE 221st Street or south on Johnson Street. This route takes less than two minutes and does not require traveling onto N. Main Street (US 301/SR 200). Ms. Bordelon testified that she performed the referenced timing study and confirmed the findings thereof. She stated that alternative routes are simple to find in Hawthorne because the city's streets are laid out in grid fashion. There are parallel roads on either side of the Crossing, and the closing of the Crossing would not leave any property landlocked. Ms. Bordelon's timing study established that there are at least two alternate routes for vehicles, each of which would add a driving time of less than two minutes. As noted above, the 221st Street crossing is about 475 feet from the Crossing and the U.S. 301 crossing is about 264 feet from the Crossing, providing nearby alternatives to the Crossing after its closure. As to the "effect on rail operations and expenses" criterion, the Department made the following findings: The elimination of the rail crossing at SE 222nd Street would benefit the Railroad and the City in the reduction of liability and maintenance expenses. The removal of the crossing would eliminate the cost of upgrading and maintaining the crossing. The Department's Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 130 funds are annually distributed and utilized on crossings within each District based on a diagnostic team's evaluation of the prioritized crossings' need for safety enhancement.3 Hawthorne has been the recipient of a major safety project with the construction of the $42 million grade separation project at SR 20/Hawthorne Road and US 301/SR 200. The Department has also scheduled a $375,000 crossing surface project at US 301/SR 200 to be installed in the coming fiscal year. The US DOT Action Plan specifically states: when improving one crossing (i.e., grade separation or crossing improvements) consider the elimination of the adjacent crossing. The closure of SE 222nd Street reflects the guidance of the Federal Railroad Administration's crossing consolidation plan. The elimination of the SE 222nd Street crossing would positively impact rail operations in the reduction of horn blowing and the elimination of trains blocking the roadway. The elimination of both of these factors at this site would reduce complaints received from motorists and nearby homeowners. Cliff Stayton, director of community affairs and safety for CSX, testified that at any public crossing, federal regulations require the operating railroad to sound the horn at least 15 seconds but no more than 20 seconds before the train enters the crossing.4/ Mr. Stayton pointed out that here there are three crossings within a half-mile of each other, each of which requires the sounding of the horn. Eliminating the Crossing would reduce the nuisance factor of the horn to the nearby residents. As to the "excessive restrictions to emergency vehicles resulting from closure" criterion, the Department found that the closure of the Crossing would have no effect on emergency vehicle access. Alachua County provides EMS service to Hawthorne, and the vehicles come from a county fire and rescue station eight miles west on S.R. 20. The vehicles could access any residence on SE 222nd Street by taking S.R. 20 to U.S. 301. The hospitals serving Hawthorne are all located in the Gainesville area. Ms. Bordelon testified that emergency vehicles use main arterial roads such as U.S. 301 rather than urban local roads such as SE 222nd Street, and the closure of the Crossing would have no adverse impact to the provision of emergency services on either side of the Crossing. As to the "design of the grade crossing and road approaches" criterion, the Department found that the Crossing's timber and asphalt surface provides a rough transition from the road surface, with noticeable dipping and bouncing. The approaches to the Crossing are cracked and patched, adding to the rough transition. As noted above, the uneven surface may cause a driver to pay more attention to choosing a smooth path over the Crossing rather than determining whether a train is approaching. Though there are no recorded accidents at the Crossing, its design and state of repair lead to the finding that closing the Crossing would offer at least some incremental safety enhancement to motorists. As to the "presence of multiple tracks and their effect on railroad and highway operations" criterion, Ms. Bordelon testified that it did not apply in this case because the Crossing has only a single track. In addition to his argument that his practice will be inconvenienced by having access to the park cut off, Dr. Henry alleged that disabled persons may have difficulty accessing his clinic via wheelchair if they are forced to cross at U.S. 301 rather than at the Crossing. Dr. Henry alleges that this constitutes a failure to offer a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. No direct evidence was presented to support this speculative claim. In summary, the Department's findings leading to the recommendation that the Crossing be closed are supported by competent substantial evidence. Mr. Henry's concerns regarding the impact of closure on his business were sincere and well expressed at the hearing, but were insufficient to rebut the Department's prima facie showing that the criteria set forth in rule 14-57.012(2)(c) have been satisfied and the Crossing should be closed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the requested permit for closure of public railroad-highway grade crossing 627445-K located at SE 222nd Street in Hawthorne, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 26th day of October, 2012.
Findings Of Fact The City is an incorporated city within the State of Florida. The subject railroad crossing on South Caledonia Street is located within the city limits of Marianna. The DOT is the agency of state government which is charged with the regulation of railroad crossings, to include the determination of whether a crossing should be opened or closed. The CSX is the railroad company which owns the railroad and railroad crossing in question and which may have to pay a portion of the costs of any improvements to the crossing. South Caledonia Street is constructed along a section line and runs due south through Marianna connecting US 90, a major east-west arterial highway, with the southern portion of Marianna and its rural environs as it becomes Highway 73 at its intersection with Jefferson Street. See Railroad's Exhibit 1. South Caledonia Street, one of ten north-south streets which crosses the railroad within the limits of Marianna, is the only one which runs straight south over the tracks to Interstate 10. South Caledonia Street is one of the four streets which provides transit over the tracks in the eastern portion of Marianna. In order from east to west, Jefferson Street, Green Street, Caledonia or South Caledonia Street (the one in question), and West Caledonia Street run north and south and provide the principal links between US 90 and South Street, in the eastern portion of the City. South Street is a major east-west street in the southern part of the City. The other east-west roads south of US 90 are Jackson Street north of the railroad; Pearl Street running west from South Caledonia between the railroad and South Street; and unpaved Franklin Street running eastward immediately north of the railroad between Caledonia and Green Streets and running westward south of the railroad between Caledonia and West Caledonia Streets. South Caledonia and West Caledonia Streets are principally residential from South Street to one block south of the railroad tracks, and commercial north of the railroad tracks. DOT's Exhibit 1 is an annotated aerial photograph of this portion of the City showing the major roads named above and the daily traffic counts on them. In recent years, the railroad crossings on West Caledonia, Green, and Jefferson Streets have been upgraded to current standards. The crossing on Caledonia Street is not improved, and the street is in very poor condition between Jackson and Pearl Streets; however, planned resurfacing of the street has been delayed while this case is litigated because upgrading the crossing will require recontouring of Caledonia Street. The poor condition of Caledonia Street has reduced traffic on the street over the railroad and has caused the existing traffic to go slower. There has never been a train-car accident at the South Caledonia Street crossing. Recontouring Caledonia Street at the railroad crossing will eliminate or reduce access to A.B. Williams Concrete and Block Company from Caledonia Street; however, there is access to the company from Green Street. The owner supports keeping the crossing open even if it restricts access to his business. Recontouring Caledonia Street would make it feasible for heavy trucks to move over the crossing on South Caledonia Street which is Highway 73 south of its intersection with Jefferson Street. Currently, the majority of the heavy truck traffic is using West Caledonia to move south and turning left on South Street to come back to Caledonia Street and out Highway 73. The intersection of West Caledonia and South Street is not well suited for such traffic. It will cost at least $250,000 to upgrade the existing crossing. It costs $612 each year to maintain the upgraded crossing. Letting the crossing remain open will have no effect on the operations of the railroad. There was no evidence presented on the costs of paving Franklin Street or the unpaved portions of the railroad right-of-way to enable traffic stopped at the railroad to move east and west north of the tracks or westward south of the tracks. There is no available route eastward south of the tracks. No evidence on the traffic count over the crossing was presented. The DOT did not take a traffic count over the crossing. If the closure of the South Caledonia Street crossing increases the traffic on Jefferson Street, currently 4,000 vehicles per day, to 5,000 vehicles per day, the Jefferson Street crossing will have to be upgraded to have bells, lights and gates. A significant increase in traffic count on Jefferson Street is possible given the current use rate of Caledonia Street north and south of the railroad, which is known. No evidence was presented on the cost of upgrading the Jefferson Street crossing. Caledonia Street is not used by emergency vehicles or school buses, and there are viable alternatives for emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks if this crossing were eliminated. However, closing this crossing will create a cul-de-sac north and south of the existing crossing on Caledonia Street because of the absence of paved east-west through streets. As indicated above, it will be very inconvenient and costly to create east-west links to eliminate these cul-de-sacs. In spite of the poor condition of the crossing and the road surface and the availability of alternatives, Caledonia Street carries more traffic than does Green Street which has had its crossing upgraded. Caledonia Street, upon which the subject crossing is located, is the only straight north-south route from US 90 to Highway 73. The preservation of this route for the future must be considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that CSX, Inc.'s Petition to close the public vehicular crossing on Caledonia Street in Marianna, Florida, be denied, and said crossing be kept open. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ben C. Watts Interim Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Michael D. Mee, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Stephen H. Shook, Esquire 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Post Office Box 793 Marianna, Florida 32446 ================================================================= AGENCY REMAND ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Petitioners, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 89-3557 CITY OF MARIANNA, Respondent. / ORDER REMANDING CAUSE FOR RECONSIDERATION The Recommended Order was issued in this cause on November 14, 1989. On December 4, 1989, the Department of Transportation filed Agency's Exceptions to Recommended Order, copy of which is attached. A review of the complete record has been made. The Department of Transportation remands the instant cause to Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, for reconsideration based on the following: The Recommended Order states in Finding of Fact Number 9 that the closure or the South Caledonia Street crossing would increase the traffic on Jefferson Street resulting in one upgrading of the Jefferson Street crossing by the addition of bells, lights and gates. The finding is not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. At the hearing below, testimony was adduced that the Jefferson Street crossing has already been upgraded with bells, lights and gates. (Transcript pages 99 - 100) Since the Hearing Officer relied, in part, upon this incorrect factual determination, the case is remanded to the Hearing Officer for reconsideration pursuant to the facts as corrected. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the instant cause is remanded, for twenty days following receipt of this Order, to Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings for reconsideration. DONE AND ORDERED, this 21st day of December, 1989. BEN G. WATTS, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen H. Shook, Esquire 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Post Office Box 793 Marianna Florida 32446 Michael D. Mee Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ================================================================= ORDER ON REMAND =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Polk County proposes to relocate Hunt Brothers Road where it crosses the Seaboard Coastline Railroad near Highland Park some 350 feet to the north and to remove the existing roadway approach to the crossing. Hunt Brothers Road is a two lane highway 24 feet wide. The existing road has no signalling devices or warning lights installed other than a railroad crossing sign. Polk County proposes to put back-to-back flashing lights on each side of the road at the relocated crossing. However, the county has no objection to installing whatever signal devices are required at this crossing. The approach to the proposed crossing provides greater safety than exists at the old crossing. The new road exits a curve to the right 250 feet from the tracks. No other obstruction exists at this crossing, however, a second parallel track exists on which cars could be parked within 200 feet of the road. From the evidence adduced this appears to be a relatively short siding and not a track on which trains move. One northbound and one southbound train moves over this track daily. No evidence was presented that stanchions for flashing lights could not be located within 12 feet of the edge of the roadway. There is no record of any accident at the existing crossing and the safety factor of the crossing was not computed and presented at the hearing. The additional initial cost of installing cantilevered flashing lights and gates over the cost of installing roadside flashing lights is some $50,000. No cost benefit ratio or study showing the benefits to be obtained with use of the more expensive system was presented. The principal reason for the District Safety Engineer's recommendation for cantilevered flashing lights and gates was that as the driver of a car negotiated the curve approaching the track his eyes would of necessity be focused on the center line of the road and would better see lights located over the center of the road. He acknowledged however that if lights were on both sides of the road the field of vision of a driver looking straight ahead as he exited the curve would include a light on the left-hand side of the road before one in the middle of the road.
Findings Of Fact Sebastian has applied for a Department permit to open a public at-grade crossing of the Railway's right-of-way near Mile Post 218 + 146'. The proposed Stratton Avenue crossing of the railroad track is part of a planned eastward extension of Barber Street and Stratton Avenue. If completed, this extension will provide a new arterial road connecting the southeast interior section of Sebastian with U.S. Highway 1. (Stip.; P-2 (d); R-1) The proposed Stratton Avenue crossing will have an 80 foot right-of-way and eventually accommodate four lanes. During the permitting process, its alignment has been modified to provide for greater vehicular sight distance. Although the proposed Stratton Avenue extension does not cross the tracks at right angles, which would provide maximum sighting of oncoming trains, it is likely that further improvements in alignment can be made. Nevertheless, the alignment, as proposed, complies with standard engineering criteria contained in the "Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction, and Maintenance for Streets and Highways." (P-2 (d); Testimony of Adair) The alignment of the proposed crossing would allow for a 45 mile-per- hour speed limit. Twenty-four trains currently pass this section of track each day. The train speed limit is 65 miles-per-hour. (R-2) The proposed crossing will be provided with cross-bucks, gates, and flashers. The parties have stipulated that Sebastian will install, at its own expense, active grade crossing traffic control devices meeting the criteria of Rule 14-46.03(3), Florida Administrative Code. (Stipulation) Applications to open public at-grade crossings are measured by three criteria: convenience, safety of rail and vehicle traffic, and necessity. Existing routes must first be utilized when practicable. Damage to a railway's operation and safety must be considered. And when estimated traffic approaches 30,000 vehicles a day on main line tracks, the applicant must perform a cost- benefit analysis to determine if grade separation is warranted. See, Section 14-46.03(2)(a), Fla. Admin. Code. II. CRITERION 1: CONVENIENCE The proposed Stratton Avenue crossing would be convenient and provide several advantages to residents of Sebastian. (A map showing the location of the proposed crossing is attached for easy reference.) Improved Access to Hurricane Shelter. Sebastian Elementary School has recently been built at the intersection of Schumann Drive and south Barber Street. (Stratton Avenue will connect Barber Street with U.S. 1.) This school serves as a hurricane or civil defense fallout shelter for Sebastian and northern Indian River County. The proposed Stratton Avenue extension would provide an additional access route and facilitate evacuation of residents from U.S. 1 to the shelter. (TR-53-55) Improved Access to Sebastian Elementary School. The new school serves students located throughout the northern part of Indian River County. Currently, 42 school buses transport students to and from the school using Powerline Road (a dirt road unsatisfactory for bus traffic) and Schumann Drive (a road which traverses a residential neighborhood). A majority of these buses would use the proposed Stratton Avenue extension since it would be paved and would avoid built-up residential neighborhoods. The latter advantage may be short-lived, however, because Stratton Avenue will traverse a residential area which will eventually be developed. The Stratton Avenue extension would also benefit parents who bus their children to school because it would provide a new access road from U.S. 1. The School Board of Indian River County supports the Stratton Avenue extension and crossing because of the increased access provided to school buses and parents. (Testimony of Solin, Tipton, R-1, P-4) Improved Fire and Police Access to the Elementary School and South Sebastian. The proposed Stratton Avenue extension, with crossing, will enhance fire, police, and emergency service access to the elementary school and residential areas of south Sebastian. Currently, fire and police vehicles reach the south and southwestern portions of the city by proceeding south one and three quarters miles on Schumann Drive (which is one and three quarters miles north of Stratton Avenue), then south on Barber Avenue to the residential areas. The Stratton Avenue extension would provide a shorter and more direct route so emergency vehicles could respond more quickly. (Testimony of Solin) Improved Access to U.S. 1 from South Sebastian Residential Areas. Residents living in south and southwest Sebastian would have improved access to U.S. 1 and coastal areas if the extension, with crossing, is built. Residents traveling east on Barber Street would have a shorter and mode direct route to U.S. 1 and the coast. Two county road improvements planned for completion during the next two years will, however, improve access to and from Sebastian Elementary School and U.S. 1. Powerline Road will be widened and paved; Schumann Drive will be extended to Wobaso Road, as shown on the attached map. 2/ III. CRITERION 2: SAFETY The design and alignment of the proposed crossing meets or exceeds all safety and engineering standards of the Department, and no party asserts otherwise. The design will allow clear, though not optimum, visibility by both vehicle and train traffic. (Testimony of Murray, Adair, Tipton; P-2 (d), R-1) The proposed crossing will, however, provide a new point for potential collision between trains and motor vehicles, with resulting property damage, injury, and loss of life. Currently, 24 of the Railway's trains pass the crossing site each day, with a permissible speed of 65 miles-per-hour. The proposed crossing will increase the potential for collision between motor vehicles and trains. (Testimony of Tipton; P-16) The frequency and seriousness of grade-crossing accidents are cause for concern. In 1978, there were 1,122 grade-crossing fatalities, nationwide. Between 1979 and 1983, there were 177 grade crossing accidents involving the Railway's trains; 18 people were killed and 66 injured. These accidents occurred despite the fact that the Railway's public crossings are equipped with gates, bells, and lights. (Testimony of Tipton) It is generally recognized that, assuming equal volumes of vehicular traffic, the potential for accidents is directly related to the number of crossings. (Testimony of Tipton; R-1) IV. CRITERION 3: NECESSITY Although completion of the proposed Stratton Avenue extension, with crossing, would benefit Sebastian residents, there is no genuine need or necessity for the extension. Existing roads and crossings, with minor improvements (many of which are already planned or underway) can safely and adequately accommodate existing vehicular traffic and traffic demands projected for the next five years. (Testimony of Tipton; R-1) The Railway contracted for an in-depth traffic engineering study to determine whether the proposed at-grade crossing is needed for transportation purposes. That study, which is credible and accepted as persuasive, concludes that the existing roads and crossings serving the area north and south of Stratton Avenue can, with minor improvements, safely and adequately accommodate traffic demands reasonably projected for the next five years. (R-1) In conducting the study, William E. Tipton, an expert traffic transportation engineer, collected and analyzed four kinds of data: 1) Population growth projected in the area of the proposed crossing within the next five years; 2) Traffic characteristics at intersections and crossings near the proposed crossing; 3) Daily traffic counts at those intersections; and 4) Roadway improvements planned for the near future. (R-1, Testimony of Tipton) Existing traffic on the nearby intersections was counted and adjusted to derive peak season and peak hour conditions. Applying standard capacity measurements, the study indicates that, currently, 52 percent of the existing capacity of State Road 510 is used during peak conditions; 20 percent of the capacity of 87th Street is used; and 26 percent of Vickers Road. It is apparent that these roads currently have excess capacity and are underutilized. As Mr. Tipton stated: "I could have laid down in the road for a while while we were out there counting traffic, because the traffic was that low." (TR-119; Testimony of Tipton; R-1) The impacts of traffic generated by additional residential development projects planned for completion during the next five years was then analyzed. Traffic from these particular developments, assumed to be 100 percent occupied, was then assigned to nearby roads and a critical movement analysis was performed for each intersection. Level of Service "D" is the design standard which is normally deemed acceptable for peak hour, peak season traffic conditions. With the following minor improvements, the nearby intersections can provide "D" service or better during the next five years, without construction of the Stratton Avenue extension and crossing: 1) installing a signal at the intersection of U. S. 1 and 510, which is already underway; 2) adding a right turn lane on the south leg of U.S. 1 at this same intersection; 3) installing a traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. 1 and Schumann Drive to allow a left turn-out; 4) adding a left turn lane on the south leg of State Road 5A at the intersection of 510 and 5A. (TR 122-123) The cost of the proposed Stratton Avenue extension will exceed, many times over, the cost of these relatively minor intersection improvements. (Testimony of Tipton; R-1) Although the south Sebastian area was extensively platted for residential development during the 1960s, it remains sparsely populated today. It is projected fifty percent "build-out" will occur in 15 years, and full "build-out" in 30 years. At some point in the future the proposed Stratton Avenue extension will, undoubtedly, be needed but it is reasonably certain that it will not be needed for transportation purposes for at least five years. (Testimony of Tipton) V. NO DAMAGE TO RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND NO NEED FOR A GRADE SEPARATION COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS There is no evidence that the proposed extension and crossing will damage or interfere with operations of the Railway. Should the Stratton Avenue extension and crossing be built, it is estimated that traffic use will ultimately approach 31,830 vehicles, but this will not occur within 20 years, the period considered to be a reasonable planning cycle for road improvements. No cost-benefit analysis was performed by Sebastian (to determine whether a grade separation is required) because the traffic projections did not approach 30,000 within a 20-year period. Further, there is no evidence that either the Department or the Railway ever requested that such an analysis be done. The parties' prehearing stipulation fails to indicate that the requirement of a cost-benefit analysis is at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Sebastian's application for a permit to open the Stratton Avenue at- grade public railroad crossing be denied, without prejudice to its right to reapply in the future should circumstances warrant it. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 23rd day of November, 1983.
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 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
The Issue Whether a permit should be issued to close an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 123 + 3,478 feet and Eleanor Street in New Smryna Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Eleanor Street railroad crossing is within the city limits of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, and serves a residential neighborhood. There are a total of 16 freight train movements north and south in a 24-hour period. There are normally two local freight trains each day. In August of 1966 there was a railroad train/automobile accident in which there were two fatalities and one injury. There is a small manufacturing plant on the west side of Eleanor Avenue which uses subject crossing. The factory has approximately 15 trucks. Motor vehicular count shows that there are between 600 and 900 crossings per day at this railroad crossing. Eleanor Street is a two- way street and the train is a single track. The street is relatively straight on the east side of the track and there is a reverse curve on the west side of the track. The crossing is protected by cross bows and stop signs. To the south of Eleanor Street, several hundred feet, is Wayne Street crossing, which is a two-lane street protected with flashing lights and gates at the railroad crossing. The Wayne Street crossing is heavily traveled with a traffic count of some 2,407 crossings per day. Although there are several crossings in close proximity, ditches and lack of through streets make these crossings inconvenient to those presently using subject crossing. The petitioner desires the crossing be closed, but if it is not closed that flashing bells, lights and gates be installed. The Respondent City does not want the crossing to be closed and states that it has allocated 10 percent of the required funds for installation of proper signalization. The Respondent Department of Transportation does not recommend that the crossing be closed and recommends that the crossing be signalized by a Type I signalization which is roadside mounted flashing lights with bells. Federal funds can he used for this project.
Recommendation Grant the petition to close unless installation of a Type I denomination of signalization is begun within sixty (60) days from date of Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Charles B. Evans, Esquire General Counsel Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Charles A. Hall, Esquire City Attorney Bank of New Smyrna Building New Smyrna Beach, Florida
Findings Of Fact After receiving evidence, hearing testimony and personally visiting the site of the subject railroad crossing and the area the crossing serves, I find: The subject of this hearing is a railroad crossing located 2,423 North of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Post SPA-803 in an area designated Four Points Way on the west side of South Adams Street, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, contends that the crossing is now a public crossing and should be closed or appropriate safety equipment should be installed. The safety engineer for Petitioner recommends flashing lights and gates. Respondent contends that the present signalization is adequate and the crossing should not be closed; that the railroad should maintain the current safety signalization at the existing crossing and that appropriate markings should be made at the highway and street approach to the crossing. Public use has increased from a few crossings per day to a 24-hour count of 1,186 vehicles on an average day in July, 1978. The increase in traffic has been generated by the number of business establishments in the industrial area and increased business. A large business catering to home owners has generated a large amount of business in recent years. The railroad crossings and streets make a complicated and congested traffic pattern: The subject crossing is located West of South Adams Street (State Road 363) on a paved but privately owned paved and curbed street which serves the industrial area. There is a short street connecting South Adams Street and South Monroe Street (State Road 61) directly across South Adams Street from the subject crossing. The area intersection has two major highways, South Adams and South Monroe, crossing each other with several exits and entrances. There have been many reported traffic accidents. The Panhandle Concrete Industry, Inc., is a concrete plant which has an entrance intersecting with the private paved road in the industrial park area West of the railroad. It uses the subject railroad crossing. Directly to the East and South of the subject crossing is a public generated unimproved road intersecting with South Adams Street, a short distance from the crossing. Approximately 600 feet North of the subject crossing is a paved but non-signalized crossing that is used by the general public doing business with Carpet City, The Canoe Shop, Home of Fibercell Manufacturing, Inc., Signs by Matlock, and a Department of Education warehouse. It appears that said crossing is subject to regulation by petitioner under Section 338.21(3), Florida Statutes. Approximately 1,000 feet North of the subject crossing is a public crossing on Bragg Drive. This crossing is marked by railroad cross bucks. There is an entrance to Bragg Drive from the Department of Education warehouse and also from the foregoing named businesses primarily served by the paved but non-signalized crossing. Respondent, Albritton-Williams, requested a permit for the opening of an at-grade public crossing on October 22, 1973. Thereafter, at a public hearing on July 15, 1974, it moved to amend the application so it could pave the subject crossing and contended that the crossing was in fact a private crossing. On November 6, 1974, the Recommended Order, which was adopted as the Petitioner's Final Order, concluded that the crossing was a private crossing and that the Florida Department of Transportation had no jurisdiction. Thereafter, the owners of the industrial area paved the street to serve the private business interests of the industrial park. Subsequent to the issuance of the Recommended Order, and subsequent to the paving of the street, the Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, determined that the formerly designated private crossing is in fact a public crossing and that the Petitioner has and should exert regulatory authority over the crossing as required by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes. It petitioned for subject hearing. There are a number of owners and lessees of the area including: Panhandle Concrete Industries, Inc.; Scottie's; Eli-Witt Company; Four Points Industrial Park and Albritton-Williams, Inc. These owners and lessees are all businesses which invite the public to their doors and presently require the crossing of subject railroad both to and from the businesses. There is no other improved exit or entrance to the industrial and business area. The roadways within the park have not been dedicated to the City, County or State. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad uses the three tracks enroute Lo St. Marks, Florida, three days a week, twice each day, travelling between ten and twenty miles per hour. The three to eight car train runs in the afternoons between 3:00 o'clock and 4:00 o'clock to St. Marks and returns. The tracks run North and South and the road runs East and West. The testimony elicited stated that the train takes about five minutes per crossing, six times each week, twice each day on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The rail highway grade crossing index introduced into evidence placed the crossing at 2,848 on a priority rating the highest being 8 and the lowest being 5,639 for corrective action at public railroad crossings in the State of Florida. The accident potential of subject crossing is 06 on a scale of 40.19. There have been no reported accidents at the subject crossing. The vehicular traffic at the crossing can back up on South Adams Street at the time of the crossing of the train for the reason that the area between the closest railroad track and the outer edge of the travel lane going South on Adams Street is approximately 90 to 95 feet with storage for about three vehicles. Highway and street approach markings although helpful would not solve the problem of congested traffic. The property that the existing crossing serves is within the cite limits of Tallahassee, Florida. The proposed order of the Respondent has been examined and each proposed fact has been treated in this Order. The Hearing Officer further finds: The subject crossing is a public crossing and there has been a crossing in said general area which had been used by the public in excess of twenty years. There is a need for a railroad crossing to serve the industrial area that stretches from the privately paved road of Respondent North to Bragg Street and South of the concrete plant. A crossing in the area is required for the convenience of the business interest in the area. The subject crossing creates a hazard because of its location directly West of South Adams Street and across from the short cross-connection between South Adams Street and South Monroe Street. This hazard is increased by other cross-connections between these major streets and by a public railroad crossing on State Road 61, South Monroe Street approximately 400 feet South of the subject crossing. The hazard is caused by the location of the crossing rather than the crossing itself.
Recommendation Close the crossing in not less than 90 days or more than 100 days from date hereof. Upon petition by the respondent or other interested parties, open a crossing to serve the needs and convenience of the owners and lessees at the closing of the subject crossing at a location that will not cause a traffic hazard and will meet standards required by the Petitioner, Department of Transportation. Consideration should be given to directing all traffic crossing the railroad to one crossing serving the entire commercial area which includes interests in addition to respondents. The non-signalized crossing should be scrutinized. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank King, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Roy T. Rhodes, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jesse F. Warren, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 E. Eugene Buzard Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida Rhett Miller, City Engineer City Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN RE: Petition of State of Florida, Department of Transportation for closing of, or in the alternative, installation of appropriate safety equipment at, CASE NO. 77-1751 a public at-grade railroad crossing 2,423 feet north of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company Mile Post SPA-803 and a proposed street at Four Points Industrial Park in Tallahassee, Florida. /
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend that the application of the Petitioner-Applicant for the subject railroad crossing at Northwest 74th Avenue, between 74th and 77th Streets in the City of Medley, Florida, be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Lubow, Esquire City Attorney of Medley, Florida 819 Dupont Plaza Center Miami, Florida 33131 Phillip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Humes, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Respondent Florida East Coast Railway Company One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084
