Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SR 89 MOUSEHOLE STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE MEETING <br />NOVEMBER 15, 2007 MEETING MINUTES <br />3:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Truckee Town Hall <br />Council Chambers <br /> <br /> <br />Present: <br /> <br />Bob Bell, Truckee Donner Historical Society/Legacy Trail Foundation/Truckee Donner Railroad <br />Society <br />Becky Bucar, Town of Truckee Assistant Engineer <br />Jan Colyer, Truckee North Tahoe Transportation Management Association (arrived at <br />approximately 4:00 PM) <br />Carolyn Wallace Dee, Truckee Town Council <br />Denny Dickinson, Truckee Stakeholder <br />Patrick Flora, Truckee Planning Commission <br />Dan Landon, Nevada County Transportation Commission <br />Michelle Nieves, Donner Creek Mobile Home Park <br />Josh Susman, Truckee Town Council <br />John Svahn, Truckee Trails Foundation <br />Dan Wilkins, Public Works Director/Town Engineer <br />John Witney, Truckee Donner Chamber of Commerce <br />Tom Wood, Caltrans <br />David Yardas, Truckee Trails Foundation <br /> <br />Meeting Started at 3:10 p.m. <br /> <br />1. Dan Wilkins gave a quick overview of the following alternatives and the estimated construction <br />costs: <br />a. Alternative A1: Realigned RR/Short Bridge <br />b. Alternative A2: Realigned RR/Long Bridge <br />c. Alternative B: Shoofly <br />d. Alternative C: Tunnel <br /> <br />2. Dan Wilkins indicated that a potentially significant portion of the costs associated with <br />Alternatives A1 and A2 are a result of the railroad’s design requirement that the new track bed <br />and bridge be of sufficient width to accommodate a future third track. In addition, the railroad has <br />indicated that a new railroad alignment would require a degree of curvature that is equal to or <br />flatter than the existing curvature. Caltrans could provide additional information regarding the <br />costs of Alternatives A1 and A2 assuming two railroad tracks instead on three and a sharper <br />curvature of the realigned railroad. This information could be valuable in determining whether, <br />with these more relaxed design requirements, the cost of Alternatives A1 and A2 can be <br />competitive with Alternative B. Dan Wilkins asked the group if it was worthwhile to ask Caltrans to <br />do additional cost analysis on Alternative A1 and A2. <br /> <br />3. The group discussed that although all alternatives were assumed to have the same right of way <br />costs, it is likely that Alternative B (Shoofly) would likely have the lowest Right of Way costs. <br /> <br />4. David Yardas asked what was causing the tunnel alternative’s construction costs to be so high. <br />Tom Wood explained that the high costs had a lot to do with the unconventional jack and bore <br />construction method. <br /> <br />5. John Svahn asked for clarification regarding the cross section through the new tunnel in Alt C. <br />Dan Wilkins explained that it would be 45 feet wide, which would provide for two 12-foot travel <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br />Town of Truckee <br />November 15, 2007 Mousehole Stakeholder Committee Meeting Minutes <br />Page 1 <br /> <br />