Stakeholder Meeting Minutes 101507 with edits
Stakeholder Meeting Minutes 101507 with edits
12/28/2007 1:53:47 PM
12/28/2007 1:53:46 PM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
<br />6. Patrick Flora asked what the status of highway operations are as they pertain to the project. Dan <br />Wilkins discussed how the level of SR 89 traffic congestion is not the same as the Roseville <br />commute (consistent congestion on weekdays during commute times), which makes the project a <br />lower priority for Caltrans in terms of traffic congestion. The traffic analysis prepared to date <br />indicates the Mousehole will back up roughly 30-45 days per year at build out of the Town. <br /> <br />7. Dan Wilkins discussed that pedestrian safety is a concern but Caltrans ranks safety projects <br />based upon accident frequency and rates. As few accidents have occurred at the Mousehole, it is <br />not considered a significant safety hazard. Dan suggested this may have to do with the fact the <br />people avoid the walking through the Mousehole. Michelle Nieves concurred that many <br />pedestrians either wait for a break in traffic and “run” through the Mousehole or walk over the top. <br /> <br />8. Dan Wilkins indicated that the project is not eligible for Highway Bridge Replacement and <br />Rehabilitation (HBRR) funding because Caltrans does not own the bridge. The bridge is owned by <br />the railroad, which does not view the structure to be an existing deficiency since it provides <br />adequate train capacity. <br /> <br />9. Denny Dickinson indicated that he has seen portions of an agreement from 1928 that indicates <br />the bridge belongs to Caltrans which would potentially make the bridge eligible for HBRR funds. <br />Town staff/Caltrans to follow up. <br /> <br />10. Dan Wilkins described the short and long realigned railroad alternatives and that the short <br />alternative would result in fill in the creek, while the long alternative would span the creek. Dan <br />also indicated that the difference in cost between the long and short alternatives must be weighed <br />against the impact to the creek. For example, if we find that the long alternative costs $10 million <br />more than the short alternative, the Town could consider the use of the additional $10 million for a <br />restoration project elsewhere in the Town. <br /> <br />11. Dan Wilkins discussed that Caltrans has indicated that the Mousehole itself is not a historic <br />resource and is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but the railroad alignment <br />is. In addition, the Truckee Donner Historical Society has indicated that they would like the old <br />train trestle bridge abutments to be retained at their current location or relocated. Also, if possible, <br />they would like to preserve the Mousehole, although this would have a lower importance than the <br />bridge abutments. <br /> <br />12. Dan Wilkins discussed all the decision making entities that will be involved with the project: <br />Caltrans, Union Pacific Railroad, Town of Truckee, Nevada County Transportation Commission, <br />State Historic Preservation Officer, Department of Interior, Department of Fish and Game, US <br />Fish and Wildlife Service, Lahontan, Army Corp of Engineers, and Public Utility Commission. <br /> <br />13. Michelle Nieves asked whether the USFS will need to be involved. Dan Wilkins indicated that <br />they would be if we end up impacting their property at all. <br /> <br />14. Dan Wilkins discussed what utilities are on site: TSD sewer line in creek, high pressure jet fuel <br />line, PUD water line, and high pressure gas. <br /> <br />15. Dan Wilkins asked the group to think about what side of the road the Class I bike path should be <br />considering existing pedestrian traffic generators, out-of-direction travel, and the long-term <br />Legacy Trail vision. <br /> <br />16. Dan Wilkins discussed the railroad’s requirements and requests. In particular they have <br />requested that any new railroad alignment have the same curvature or be flatter than the existing <br />condition. They have also requested that any new structure provide adequate width for a third <br />track. <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br />Town of Truckee <br />October 15, 2007 Mousehole Stakeholder Committee Meeting Minutes <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.