Loading...
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