HomeMy Public PortalAboutStakeholder Meeting Minutes 101507 with edits
SR 89 MOUSEHOLE STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE MEETING
DRAFT OCTOBER 15, 2007 MEETING MINUTES
4:30 p.m.
Truckee Town Hall
Administrative Conference Room
Present:
Winder Bajwa, Caltrans
Becky Bucar, Town of Truckee Assistant Engineer
Jan Colyer, Truckee North Tahoe Transportation Management Association
Carolyn Wallace Dee, Truckee Town Council
Denny Dickinson, Truckee Stakeholder
Patrick Flora, Truckee Planning Commission
Dan Landon, Nevada County Transportation Commission
Michelle Nieves, Donner Creek Mobile Home Park
Brian Stewart, Placer County Department of Public Works
Josh Susman, Truckee Town Council
Steve Teshara, North Lake Tahoe Resort Association
Ron Treabess, North Lake Tahoe Resort Association
Dan Wilkins, Public Works Director/Town Engineer
David Yardas, Truckee Trails Foundation
Meeting Started at 4:40 p.m.
1. The group started with introductions.
2. The group discussed a time and day of the week for future meetings. Josh Susman indicated that
weekdays after 4:30 PM work best for him and Carolyn Dee. As Mondays do not work for the
TRWC, Planning Commission meetings are held on Wednesdays, and Town Council meetings
are held on Thursdays, it was decided that Tuesdays work best.
3. Dan Wilkins discussed the project background.
?
The Federal Government earmarked $2.82 million of Federal Surface Transportation Funds
towards the replacement of the SR 89 Mousehole.
?
Nevada County Transportation Commission has earmarked an additional $500,000 towards
this project.
?
Caltrans has held 2 public open houses.
?
Caltrans has prepared several technical studies and surveys.
?
Caltrans has taken on lead agency status.
4. Dan Wilkins discussed how the project alternatives propose to create new roadway facilities by
either constructing a new bridge (either on the existing railroad alignment or along a new
alignment) or constructing tunnels under the existing railroad. In addition, there have been some
changes to cost estimates and the feasibility of the tunnel alternative which have complicated the
alternative selection process.
5. Dan Wilkins discussed some of the project challenges:
?
The need to maintain both highway and railroad traffic makes project difficult.
?
There are two options for dealing with train traffic if a new railroad bridge is constructed: Build
a bridge on a new railroad alignment or build a temporary railroad shoofly.
?
The alternatives provide little opportunity for phasing, with the exception of the tunnel
alternative.
______________________________________________________________________________
Town of Truckee
October 15, 2007 Mousehole Stakeholder Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 1
6. Patrick Flora asked what the status of highway operations are as they pertain to the project. Dan
Wilkins discussed how the level of SR 89 traffic congestion is not the same as the Roseville
commute (consistent congestion on weekdays during commute times), which makes the project a
lower priority for Caltrans in terms of traffic congestion. The traffic analysis prepared to date
indicates the Mousehole will back up roughly 30-45 days per year at build out of the Town.
7. Dan Wilkins discussed that pedestrian safety is a concern but Caltrans ranks safety projects
based upon accident frequency and rates. As few accidents have occurred at the Mousehole, it is
not considered a significant safety hazard. Dan suggested this may have to do with the fact the
people avoid the walking through the Mousehole. Michelle Nieves concurred that many
pedestrians either wait for a break in traffic and “run” through the Mousehole or walk over the top.
8. Dan Wilkins indicated that the project is not eligible for Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation (HBRR) funding because Caltrans does not own the bridge. The bridge is owned by
the railroad, which does not view the structure to be an existing deficiency since it provides
adequate train capacity.
9. Denny Dickinson indicated that he has seen portions of an agreement from 1928 that indicates
the bridge belongs to Caltrans which would potentially make the bridge eligible for HBRR funds.
Town staff/Caltrans to follow up.
10. Dan Wilkins described the short and long realigned railroad alternatives and that the short
alternative would result in fill in the creek, while the long alternative would span the creek. Dan
also indicated that the difference in cost between the long and short alternatives must be weighed
against the impact to the creek. For example, if we find that the long alternative costs $10 million
more than the short alternative, the Town could consider the use of the additional $10 million for a
restoration project elsewhere in the Town.
11. Dan Wilkins discussed that Caltrans has indicated that the Mousehole itself is not a historic
resource and is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but the railroad alignment
is. In addition, the Truckee Donner Historical Society has indicated that they would like the old
train trestle bridge abutments to be retained at their current location or relocated. Also, if possible,
they would like to preserve the Mousehole, although this would have a lower importance than the
bridge abutments.
12. Dan Wilkins discussed all the decision making entities that will be involved with the project:
Caltrans, Union Pacific Railroad, Town of Truckee, Nevada County Transportation Commission,
State Historic Preservation Officer, Department of Interior, Department of Fish and Game, US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Lahontan, Army Corp of Engineers, and Public Utility Commission.
13. Michelle Nieves asked whether the USFS will need to be involved. Dan Wilkins indicated that
they would be if we end up impacting their property at all.
14. Dan Wilkins discussed what utilities are on site: TSD sewer line in creek, high pressure jet fuel
line, PUD water line, and high pressure gas.
15. Dan Wilkins asked the group to think about what side of the road the Class I bike path should be
considering existing pedestrian traffic generators, out-of-direction travel, and the long-term
Legacy Trail vision.
16. Dan Wilkins discussed the railroad’s requirements and requests. In particular they have
requested that any new railroad alignment have the same curvature or be flatter than the existing
condition. They have also requested that any new structure provide adequate width for a third
track.
______________________________________________________________________________
Town of Truckee
October 15, 2007 Mousehole Stakeholder Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 2
17. Group discussed funding possibilities. Carolyn Dee discussed that there are some things in the
works and that acquiring funding for this project is an achievable goal.
18. David Yardas asked whether it was realistic that we have a preferred alternative chosen by
January. Dan Wilkins discussed that we will have new information from Caltrans soon that may
help speed the decision process.
th
19. Group decided to meet again November 6 so long as Caltrans will have additional information
by then.
20. Steve Teshara discussed how the Mousehole is the top priority project for the NLTRA.
21. Group discussed the fact that if the Olympics are held here, it may provide a push for the
Mousehole.
22. Carolyn Dee discussed that the CTC recently awarded $19 million toward a second track over
Donner Summit for the purposes of goods movement. Dan Landon indicated that the project must
be started by 2013 for the funding to be available.
23. David Yardas asked about the structural integrity of the existing tunnel and embankment.
Winder Bajwa explained that the tunnel is “functionally obsolete” but that Caltrans studies indicate
that the embankment is structurally sound. Dan Wilkins mentioned that the structural section
surrounding the Mousehole impacts the separation distance required between any new tunnel
and the Mousehole. Denny Dickinson indicated that he did not think the structural analysis
include a seismic analysis. Winder Bajwa indicated he would look into it.
24. Based on the above, David Yardas expressed interest in the potential for a phased alternative
which would include at least one pedestrian-bike bore in the near future.
25. Patrick Flora indicated that most road bikers will remain on the road and will not use the
pedestrian bore.
26. Steve Teshara discussed the NLTRA’s willingness to work with the Town Council in obtaining
funding for the project.
27. Dan Wilkins indicated that the availability and timing of funding will play a key role in alternative
selection.
28. Winder Bajwa indicated that he would check with Caltrans staff as to whether they can provide
materials for a November 6th meeting. [Subsequent discussions with David Yardas indicated that
the Truckee Trails Foundation would not be able to attend committee meetings on the second
th
Tuesdays of the month, which includes November 13.]
29. Winder asked whether we should conduct a value analysis as soon as possible. Group agreed
that we should but that it will probably need to go to Town Council. Group also agreed that
including the railroad in the value analysis is essential.
Meeting ended at 6:30 PM.
______________________________________________________________________________
Town of Truckee
October 15, 2007 Mousehole Stakeholder Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 3