Loading...
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