HomeMy Public PortalAboutStakeholder Meeting Minutes 111507 _2_
SR 89 MOUSEHOLE STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 2007 MEETING MINUTES
3:00 p.m.
Truckee Town Hall
Council Chambers
Present:
Bob Bell, Truckee Donner Historical Society/Legacy Trail Foundation/Truckee Donner Railroad
Society
Becky Bucar, Town of Truckee Assistant Engineer
Jan Colyer, Truckee North Tahoe Transportation Management Association (arrived at
approximately 4:00 PM)
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
Josh Susman, Truckee Town Council
John Svahn, Truckee Trails Foundation
Dan Wilkins, Public Works Director/Town Engineer
John Witney, Truckee Donner Chamber of Commerce
Tom Wood, Caltrans
David Yardas, Truckee Trails Foundation
Meeting Started at 3:10 p.m.
1. Dan Wilkins gave a quick overview of the following alternatives and the estimated construction
costs:
a. Alternative A1: Realigned RR/Short Bridge
b. Alternative A2: Realigned RR/Long Bridge
c. Alternative B: Shoofly
d. Alternative C: Tunnel
2. Dan Wilkins indicated that a potentially significant portion of the costs associated with
Alternatives A1 and A2 are a result of the railroad’s design requirement that the new track bed
and bridge be of sufficient width to accommodate a future third track. In addition, the railroad has
indicated that a new railroad alignment would require a degree of curvature that is equal to or
flatter than the existing curvature. Caltrans could provide additional information regarding the
costs of Alternatives A1 and A2 assuming two railroad tracks instead on three and a sharper
curvature of the realigned railroad. This information could be valuable in determining whether,
with these more relaxed design requirements, the cost of Alternatives A1 and A2 can be
competitive with Alternative B. Dan Wilkins asked the group if it was worthwhile to ask Caltrans to
do additional cost analysis on Alternative A1 and A2.
3. The group discussed that although all alternatives were assumed to have the same right of way
costs, it is likely that Alternative B (Shoofly) would likely have the lowest Right of Way costs.
4. David Yardas asked what was causing the tunnel alternative’s construction costs to be so high.
Tom Wood explained that the high costs had a lot to do with the unconventional jack and bore
construction method.
5. John Svahn asked for clarification regarding the cross section through the new tunnel in Alt C.
Dan Wilkins explained that it would be 45 feet wide, which would provide for two 12-foot travel
______________________________________________________________________________
Town of Truckee
November 15, 2007 Mousehole Stakeholder Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 1
lanes and an 8-foot shoulder on one side. This would leave 13 feet remaining for a shoulder and
pedestrian facility on another side (likely a 5-foot shoulder and an 8-foot pedestrian/bike trail).
6. Denny Dickinson suggested that we look into the reuse of the old Mousehole concrete structure
and the date monument if it is torn down.
7. Patrick Flora asked why we need to look at a third railroad track. Carolyn Dee discussed how it
would bring the railroad to the table. John Svahn pointed out that a shoofly option will also bring
the railroad to the table.
8. Bob Bell indicated that we should decide whether we will be constructing a two or four lane
highway.
9. David Yardas asked why we can’t build a new tunnel in place. It was explained that the
construction of such a tunnel is not possible without the interruption of train traffic.
10. The group decided it would be appropriate to have Caltrans conduct the additional cost analysis
of A1 and A2 assuming two railroad tracks and a sharper degree of curvature.
11. The group was asked to think about what benefits might be associated with choosing A1 or A2
over Alternative B.
12. It was mentioned that the Mousehole structure could be saved in Alt B, but then we would still
have an 80-year old structure over SR 89.
13. The group was asked to keep in mind the development of a short term solution that might
address pedestrian or bicycle safety such as a pedestrian bore or a signal. Such an improvement
would likely be developed as a separate project.
14. Michelle Nieves indicated that the ped lights that have been installed are an improvement but that
they are too close to the Mousehole such that drivers do not have enough time to react.
15. It was suggested that the trail alignment associated with a short-term pedestrian bore should be
designed such that it can also work with a long term improvement, to limit “throw away” costs.
16. Per Patrick Flora’s suggestion, everyone voted on their initial preferred alternative:
?
Patrick Flora, Truckee Planning Commission – Alt B
?
Denny Dickinson, Truckee Stakeholder – Alt B
?
John Svahn, Truckee Trails Foundation – Alt B with a short term pedestrian safety solution
?
John Witney, Truckee Donner Chamber of Commerce – Alt B
?
Michelle Nieves, Donner Creek Mobile Home Park – Alt B with a short term pedestrian safety
solution
?
Bob Bell, Truckee Donner Historical Society, Truckee Legacy Trail, Truckee Donner Railroad
Society – Alt C phased
?
Jan Colyer, TNT-TMA – Alt B
?
Josh Susman, Truckee Town Council – Alt B
?
Carolyn Dee, Truckee Town Council – Alt B
17. It was mentioned that Alternative B does not meet the goals of the historical society.
18. Michelle Nieves suggested that Caltrans generate a list of ideas for a short term alternative for
the public to consider. This would eliminate the evaluation/discussion of alternatives that are
considered infeasible by Caltrans.
______________________________________________________________________________
Town of Truckee
November 15, 2007 Mousehole Stakeholder Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 2
19. Josh Susman indicated that local funds should only be required to fund their fair share of the
project.
20. Dan Wilkins indicated that these alternatives will be disused at a Project Development Team
(PDT) meeting, which largely consists of the Caltrans personnel in charge of the technical
studies. This will provide a more formal venue to eliminate alternatives from further review. The
PDT may also brainstorm short-term alternatives, which could potentially be discussed with the
Town Council in early January.
21. Town staff will plan to provide a Mousehole update at the December 20 Council Meeting. At this
meeting Town staff will provide specifics regarding bicycle facility geometry, per the request of
the Truckee Trails Foundation.
th
22. The Mousehole Stakeholders will meet again Tuesday, December 11 at 4:00 PM.
Meeting ended at 5:05 PM.
______________________________________________________________________________
Town of Truckee
November 15, 2007 Mousehole Stakeholder Committee Meeting Minutes
Page 3