_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352 ‎(11)‎

• Permit No: M1978352
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Name: AFFIDAVIT OF MARK A HEIFNER 79-CV-1633
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

•
1 thing.
2SB: It seems to me it'd be just good public relations between you
3 and the county or the people involved to put in a good cros-
4 sing.
5C: I don' t think that we could put in a crossing, say at the
6 expense of putting in the signals, at every private crossing
7 so that people would have access into their property. We do
g give them permission to cross our tracks on these particular
9 ones, but it is very, very limited.
JORW: Have you given Nottingham permission to use this access?
11C: No we have not.
12RW: Is there a problem . . . what I hear you saying is that you, at
13 this point, don' t wish to go to the extent of tearing that
14 road down which might be the railroad' s right to eliminate
15 passage on that road.
16C: There was that consideration given yes.
17 RW: But that you were hoping that something could be worked out
18 that would make that a useful road with proper safety measures.
19 C: That' s correct.
2O RW: You have given the ranch I presume they have permission to
21 use the limited way of the road?
22 C: Yes, they do it' s been in existence for a long time.
23 SB: What is the county status on the approach to the crossing.
24 Is this county (road] considered a county road?
25 C: It' s not considered a county road, no.
26 SB: It' s private road.
27 C: Yes it is.
28 JS : Does Nottingham have the right to use this road? One of the
29 things that disturbs me on this, Mr. Chairman is actually it
-11-