since since our last meeting so i'm going to give a little bit of context and background again as i've done in the past so this this effort is the culmination of really a lot of years of was this is the result of that process for the engage the park corporation and their their partners to perform this feasibility study as a part of their bid to the town so that's where we are and i know they'll be walking through sort of what occurred at the other nine so i'm not going to spend a lot of time on not but but where we were we are in this process is this in my mind essentially this they have they have taken in a lot of input from folks that have participated in the process they have digested done information they have presented it back among other things they created an evaluation matrix largely based on not are not public feedback that is the tool by which  they ranked the various alternatives that will form the recommendation for for the for the community at at the at the end of the process they at the end of meeting number nine where they where they presented this sort of final draft of the evaluation matrix and the results of that they accepted you know the additional public feedback and went back and actually began drafting the feasibility study and there is a draft the study within the next several weeks after this meeting and we anticipate and hope that we will vote to accept that that final document and  consultant on on their recommendations and provide input to them before the feasibility study is is final so again in the in the spirit b by which i think all who have participated have done today i would encourage civil thoughtful comments on this i think it's been universally driven really to background and let me tell you if something is presented and discussed at a public meeting it is a public document i have gone through this you know many times you miss another public records request of the town or that  i don't i don't want to engage in this right now all right there are the recommendations contained in the report you will see tonight this presentation will be posted on the website as have all the materials that have been have what up to th the fact is that if you follow the process as i know you have because i've seen you at many of our meetings before there will be no surprises in the feasibility study from w tonight some of which will be a little repetition of what russ heard just discussed and much of it will be what we've been showing you all along for and as a segment of the mass choose the central rail trail it's intended to advance that conceptual design to a point that then we can estimate it and evaluate it which we have done over when i say with your input from the very beginning our team developed a public engagement plan which is on the town website and it was identified very early on that this was to be a collaborative effort with the public meaning that we wouldn't gauge you at several different opportunities we would consider your inputs and reflect them back in what we were producing and i agree with what rus i see many many faces i've seen the last several months that we've been here and it's been a really great process and it really has been a wonderful exchange of information very civil exchange and discourse and it's been very very helpful to the process so dancing the alignment alternatives we can sort of brought those alignments from c pac into conceptual design level we looked at additional connections in the community and were access points to those potential lineman's were we determine where there would be the need for any structural retaining walls and other structures such as crossings or underpass of that nature and we determined different additional attributes and a static improvements that would be part of the path so that when we moved into cost estimating it include it would include everything it takes to make the community pass the way the community wants to be and nothing is sort of forgotten in that cost estimating process and finally the last goal of this project is for our team to advise and recommend to see what we think is the most feasible route for them for the community power as rust touched on we have had ten public meetings the first meeting was a kickoff and workshop meaning very well attended we had one set of meetings then that were at the early stages that were for the central section the east section and the west section and identified hot topics and we also had two side walks with the community for the east side to the center and from the west side to the center walking the entire length of the proposed routes and then we held another series of public meetings after we developed the designs further and we presented cost estimates and here tonight we will be presenting the final such a process that we've walked through the orchard now will walk through a recap of the study itself kathleen for everyone that has been to many of our meetings this will be a little bit of a refresher since them haven't met since back in april and for anyone that's new hopefully it will give you a taste of everything that the study has gone through over the past year plus i want to go through a little bit of the background and how we started the process touch on all of the alternatives that were considered and developed as part of the evaluation and then walk through part of the cost as the media says as well as the matrix evaluation before we present to you the final recommendation so we want to piece together for you how we got here for anyone that may not have been following the study from onset so the very first step of our study was to do data collection we were here all of the previous studies associated with the past dating back to the mid to late ninet coordinated with the board of selectmen the c p i e c and through them the previous c pac to find out what had been done in place and what had been recommended previously we also in addition to the public meetings that kathleen outlined as part of the process met with multiple representatives of town departments and committees at three different occasions to make sure we were getting the input from the housing authority and fire and safety and conservation land and the school committee to name a few there and we as as we've mentioned a couple times did extensive field walks ourselves to get our bearings and to make sure that we were familiar with all aspects of the properties that we would talking with the routes that were proposed including wetlands environmental historic looking at the contours and slopes of those different alignments and then we went back in the field after we did those extensive work ourselves with members of the public to point out certain things in the field because sometimes it's hard to a point line on the paper to what it's really going to look like so it was it was very beneficial goes to say what we did with the community to gain in the field perspective of what things would look like and how they would unfold and then all of our study for this feasibility process was done on g i s based mapping so as i mentioned the wet ones the historic conservation lands as well as two for contours were all developed through g i s mapping to inform as kathleen said where any structural crossings would be needed the heights of any walls so once we got to cost estimating the end of the alternative development we had a very grounded sense of what needed to be included in that estimate to make this realistic in its construction and the amount that we need to pursue for funding we also identified very early on what standards we needed to adopt and incorporate and here too as we went through the process so we looked at asho who looked at mass start standards we also had very early conversations with them bta to see what their requirements would be for offsets in a running stretch in the pinch clearance that we needed if we ever wanted to go over the rail dept we needed in order to go under the rail all of those things were considered and built into the alternatives so generally shared use paths are recommended to be between ten and fourteen feet throughout the development of the study we are actually recommending a sixteen foot paved with because  anticipated volume and the split of cyclists and pedestrians and joggers people that may or may not have strollers or walkers it became clear that it was important to the community and users that would be on the path to have some separation there so bike doesn't need space and then somewhat slower space approximately eight feet each gave us a sixteen foot tall and b t n required a twenty two and a half  clearance anytime we go over the rail and the depth on there is dependent on what may or may not be buried in certain areas if there are switches nearby if they have a quick minute underground where there are electronic lines are running so once we get a little bit farther and we identify potential underpass crossings they did a little research for us to identify what was in the ground and how deep we would need to go so any underpass you see was also coordinated with them e t a is the process  our very first meeting with you all was a kickoff just to identify what the scope of our project was and then to gain feedback from the public the key elements we looked at were look at the g i s maps we've identified g i s sometimes doesn't capture everything so is there anything that the public's aware of that might have been missing on the g i s maps we made sure we added those and took them into consideration as we develop was not important to the community in the people that may be using the path at both the workshop and then this was duplicated and put online is a survey that almost two hundred people responded to in addition to the attendance at the workshop itself and that fed very well into the information that drove the matrix so once we start to talk about the matrix leader in the criteria that were included within it they came from those questions about what was and was not important and then actually preferences helped us determine any areas where we could go over or under the track what was most important in areas where plantings and fences could be close to the path or farther away from the path what was the preference and those all play into the different alternatives that you're going to see so in meetings two to five we develop conceptual plans for alternatives that see pack t move forward from their study to our study as well as probably a handful of additional turn it is that we added to the table in areas with the c pap alternatives either didn't meet the ashed or m t a criteria or had a particular contention if you will so we tried to see if there were other ways that it made sense to get through town from the west to the east and still make this one complete community so here is all of the alternatives that were included in the study for the west end of town the original sea pack alignments were to come off of the rail where we meet at the wall fam line into the beaver creek reservation cross through there come across the road back down through the woods and continue towards the center of town or alternately come along the rail towards the waverl station and then continue on the south side of the rail so we added to that on alternate crossing into beaverbrook that brought things into belmont instead of being on the wall fam side reduced to well one crossing which produced the for the cost and allowed for a potential connection to marine street and that neighborhood there another addition that we made was instead of crossing at the low point contra color road we would move it up to the waverly lo alternative was deep into the woods which is a very steep slope which you'll see in somewhat cross sections in just a moment that had a large impact to the wooded area and would be relatively costly to build that wall for such a long stretch so we came up with one more alternative there to pull it right down to the north side of pleasant street and hauled out all the way over to the clark street bridge we also came up with a few variations for which street itself the more walks through those now so as i said there were two options to come through into before brooke we recommended the one farther to the east that made neighborhood connection and reduced when crossings they also recommended a signalized crossing in this representation of what that may look like this is almost the space bike path in rhode island that is a very visible crossing which is what we would be recommending for any crossing of this path to make sure that there's some kind of pavement texture or color that makes it clear signage and signals in order to indicate both people on the path as well as vehicles approaching of the crossing in the interaction with other uses this is a sample of what the boardwalk in the woods may look like if this alternative were chosen and then this was the rendering we developed of how the neighborhood connection could take place adjacent to mine moving farther east these are the variations as i mentioned through the conservation land the original one from the sea pack alignment that had a high wall and relatively large woodland impact and then the one that came up to the north side a pleasant stream essentially maintaining the new wall there reducing the cost reducing the impacts and enhancing the connections to pleasant street alternatively on the west end if we did not travel north  beaverbrook into the conservation land the alignment with of the rail on the north side until it got to waverly station there in the original sea path alternative was to create a structure adjacent to lexington and then switch back and come into the waverly station area on a half elevated over the existing m b t a platform alternative to that since that had a limited with for a relatively long stretch which was identified by fire and safety as being not ideal also being depressed and under the elevation of the streets that was identified by fire and safety as potentially hard to get to look at all the ways that we may be able to traverse the waverley station area the most highly ranked this will get farther into later was to box over the existing station essentially put a cap on it it would still be open air on either side and then to build a park on top of that and then the path would meander through that new park space on top of the station  alternatively if we were not able to box over although and e t a has not refused or denied that alternative we have had discussions with them and they said as long as it was done properly with the whiting inside the now it wouldn't completely be an underground station because as they said it is still open air on either end but it would be kept over we would need lighting in that station so i'm bt stance was as long as it was designed and done properly they were not opposed to it but if for some reason that could not be done whether it was cost prohibitive for needed to be phased in there was a third alternative to come up to the street grade cross truck hello in lexington at grade at signalized crossings and then extend on the south side to the east of waverly we would either stay on the south side all the way towards the d p w or cross an extension of white street where there is a paper street on the north side of the rail and connect back to what we had previously defined  w five b which was that alternative just on the north side of pleasantry moving into the center of town approaching belmont center we had five alternatives to get from the west end to clark street coming through the pearson and clark neighborhoods coming all around and making a connection to the beach street center here in town field and then coming back up to clark street or crossing the rail and coming up on the north side to clark street or if we were already on the north side coming from the conservation land just continuing along the north to clark street we could then continue either on the north or south side to belmont center and then we came up with five alternatives there so as i mentioned to get from the western end to clark street five alternatives near one hub directly to the south side of the rail which was one of the c pac original turn it of there was not enough room for that alternative to fit with the m b t a required offset and minimum path with so a minimum m b t a required fifteen foot offset plus a foot minimum path with would have put us twenty three feet off that southern rail edge that did not fit without impact to residential structures which is why this other one drives considered as an added alternative another see powerful line that was to come through pearson and clark which is a private roadway and then tie back into the car tree bridge that was assessed and you can see a couple of the street cross sections down here the route those roads are both relatively narrow essentially a path in that area would be a white sidewalk it would be a twelve to fourteen foot side walk along pearson and park the alternative to come down midland and then a really and back up towards clark would also require why even sidewalks and not necessarily and on street paths and then another alternative that we added  instead of going around the hosing authority area to the south could we go around the housing authority to the north so that was developed to cross to come along the parking lot to the west side of the housing authority building and then cross at this diagonal to the south side of pleasant street so the south side of plus the north side of the rail so it would be situated in between the north side of the rail and the south side of pleasantry and continuing into the clark street bridge the alternative c one d which had a connection to middling to the beach street center in town field was identified as making a great connection but that narrow use of a path as a sidewalk was not as favorite so this became identified as one of the potential future spurs of the pa if it did not become the recommended group itself as we got to clark street we centrally had few options there we could either stay on the north side if we were on the north stay on the south side if we were on the south or cross the rail using the area of the clark street bridge over clark street bridge itself does not have adequate clearance over the tracks as defined by an bta so as soon as we touch it to try to widen it for the use of the path it would need to be on the south side we would not there would be about a four foot get out so what's shown here in this image is that elevation change would be made up with a retaining wall here and some parking spaces could be accommodated up against that wall and then the path would start to meander into the royal rootlets if we were on the south side and we needed to get across from even the south side of the rail or clarke lane we would either need to elevate to the clark street bridge height and come across a punch under the existing clark street bridge or create a double switch back to come up to the elevation of the clark street bridge and then moving just east of clark street bridge between clark street and belmont center there were two original alternatives from c pack one on the north side of the rail and one on the south side but one on the north side would be at the height of the clark street bridge with a retaining wall of about twelve to fourteen feet as it advances further east it would then come to grade so as this continues east and you approach the belmont center these properties behind the police station and the like building are essentially level with the tracks as you approach belmont central station so there would be retaining wall here that retaining wall would diminish as you continue and then you would be  that they extended farther than what was captured by the g i s layer you can see the small extent of what went in the g i s database although it really captures much more of the school and area so in order to limit the impact to the royal road woods and what ones that may be in them we created one more alternative in this area that would come up to the north side of royal road it would not be right along  and it would not be a white and sidewalk it would still be offset set back at least six to ten feet and then run parallel to the royal would run parallel on the road once we reach belmont center we had five alternatives there again we could be coming from either the north or south side and we could be going to even the north or south side so we had to come up with a variety of alternatives here that would accommodate that potential combination of locations if we were on the north and we wanted to continue on the north we have space to create a park like setting here we would have direct access to the west found platform of the fitchburg line we would provide to both the ramps and steps down to belmont center to make that a great community connection and then we have enough with in the area where the abandoned rail is to cross on the existing concrete avenue structure and then continue on the north side if we were on the north side and wanted to get to the south or on the south and wanted to get to the north we need to create a wide and sidewalk under the concord of structure and then either home if we were on the south and we wanted to come up we would use this wind and sidewalk and then use ramps here to get up to the north side if we wanted to go the other way we would have to cross the concord ave intersection with the volume of users intended for this path and the volume of the hit killer traffic in the area this cannot be accomplished with our signal as ation which the town has studied several times in the past the town has not accepted as being a reasonable solution to that intersection and ultimately would be very difficult to try to continue such an option alternative d which is actually not shown here would widen the existing pedestrian underpass for the station and cross from the south side of the rail through that underpass to the north side of the rail and then continuation here an alternative and and then the last is if we were on the south side and wanted to stay on the south side we could build a double switch back here also construct a parallel structure to the existing concord of bridge because the concrete of bridge is historic in nature we cannot tie into it or put it like you can't leave her path directly tied into that structure it needs to be its own parallel structure which would then utilize the space of the lions club christmas tree sales and block the view of the existing historic structure finally getting to the east and i thank you all for continuing to bear with me i know there are a lot of alternatives to consider we have various alternatives to get from belmont center to the existing fitchburg cut off half on brighton street those included using the belmont citizens for our property on the north side of the rail coming behind a few commercial properties and then using the high school property and then coming behind a few more commercial properties to be directly on the south side of the rail a third to come down concord avenue and then up towards hit injure and back to brighton street and then alternatively we looked at was it possible to bypass some of the citizens form in high school property to the north and make another town connection similar to what we showed with the midland connection to the beach street center in town field we looked at connecting to the wynn elementary and then coming back down brighton itself back to the cut off  so you want a would come behind the coldwell banker building and then immediately access the moment citizens form property which is situated between the rail property and the changing road residences in kind to see a rendering of that here how it may be able to naturally meander a little bit in the space of wadded with that property this is also one option of what the amenities and plantings and separation may look like i'll show another one in a couple slides if we're not on the north side and we come along the south side as i mentioned we would come behind the flower shop and here salon and the post office and then the couple commercial properties there we would need to create about a four to six foot high wall in order to maintain the parking lots that are in those commercial properties that are currently at capacity during the middle of the day when the commercial buildings are an operation and then we would head towards the high school property if we didn't come directly along the south side of the rail but however found a way to traverse this intersection in concord of we could continue down conquered and then we developed a few plans for that on how it could look like linear park that is a couple more slides forward so the area from belmont center to break in st is essentially split at alexander out depending on whether or not we're jason to it there's also been a very long town desire to make a connection at the alexander have extension on to the rail to connect the north side of residential areas to the high school property as well as the amenities along concord avenue putting the pool in the library and music school so we kind of break along our segments between belmont center right and treat to look at what can happen at alexander app itself so again there is an alternative to staying on the north side to stay on the south side or to cross at alexander abbot self the first alternative where we would stay on the north side we would have the power to press in between two retaining walls which you can see in this rendering the path starts to dip down to a point where it can connect with the alexander of extension allowed people to go under the rail and get to the high school property and then the path itself would continue on the north side so essentially the path would come down and then come back up but the path itself would not cross the rail in this alternative the second alternative if we were on the high school property or on conquered have we could just continue down either of those options on south side of the rail or along concord avenue the second option is to create a switch back so again if we were on the north side but we didn't want the path itself to depress and come back up the path  maintain its a level route and then a switch back could allow us to get into an underpass to the high school property here are a few visuals of what that switch back will look like it was relatively costly  and there was some input that it had a limited view that could be a little bit not ideal for some users particularly in the evening hours and then the third option if the path continued on the north along the existing trails that we would be connecting to continuing east of aus andor and we would either be on the north side still on belmont citizens farm property we would be on the south side on the high school either directly or on the rail or meandering through the campus depending on how that project progresses with the m s b a review and coordination or alone conquer that we know as we get to the east on the north side there is a come back to the south side of the rail and cut behind that building or to continue hinge or to break and and then essentially read up the wide in the sidewalk on brighton street in order to get back to the fitchburg here are a few renderings of what the linear path along concord avenue could look like if we extended the recreational space there on the north side of comfort avenue this would require a real lining the street uses so right now there is one lane per direction for travel plus one parking lane per direction that only requires i believe it was a forty two foot with which we could fit almost on the south side of the median that's out there now and then we would repurposed the space  eleanor for this one in a park that's how we're showing that happening and then here across sections of what the path which essentially would be a white and sidewalk would look like on hinge or or as i mentioned if we came north on alexander to sherman and connected to the wynn elementary that would also be a wide inside walk on sherman not an offshoot finally a break in st itself we worked at three options two of them were crossing over the rail and over brighton street since that is a high volume vehicular traveled road so if we were on the north side there was an alternative to built that structure just crossing over bright street at about sixteen foot high if we were on the south side and we needed to get to the north side to connect to the fitchburg path that needed to cross both breaking street and the rails so we're looking at that twenty two and a half foot clearance that i mentioned or we had a third option to cross at grid to create as i showed way back in the slides an image of a very visible colored pavement textured pavement signed in signalized crossing and to type that timing into the gate and the lights for the rail crossing itself so that was meetings two through five that was the development of all of the alternatives brought to us by sea pack and added for the study to get through a couple of the trickier areas or areas that didn't quite meet and p t a or ashville requirements once we got past the holidays we went into meetings six to nine where we presented the costs for all of the alternatives developed as well as an advance matrix which took into account all the feedback we received from the public as well as the town and the department committees about what was important to path so for the costs we started by computing the highest cost option so here's an example where this is in the eastern section if we are on the belmont citizens for property we are on the north side of the rail and south of the changing room properties there were two options specifically pointed out one where we could stay close to the elevation of the rail itself and try to in trees that exists there adjacent to the chamber of residences or there was some input that those residences would like as much privacy as possible didn't want to see the path didn't want to hear the pa so we looked at another alternative to remove the existing embankment level with out more plant new trees and create a wall here that would have both sound dampening capabilities as well as visual separation so obviously this would be more costly option that was the one we originally included in our estimates so the estimates included all components of the path including the paved path itself the shoulders any plantings hard skate including ball walls and fences as well as amenities call boxes benches mile marker post as we had identified previously in the study of many amenities so those are all included in the cost that we prepared we also thought about the constructibility of this project and it's cow with proximity to the rail and the coronation that's going to need to continue with them e t a in order to construct it and make sure that we had a reasonable contingency added to those costs to account for any maintenance traffic including the rail and such that's going to ensue the only costs that were not included were right away so right away is not included in the numbers that we're going to present we were then asked by the town and some of the agencies that may provide funding in the future including m b t amassed to not only look at the highest cost possible but to look at the range of costs that may be incurred so then we did it in areas where there were two distinct alternatives also put a cost to the lower number as i mentioned we considered a contingency we are carrying a hefty forty percent contingency typical for this level of design would be thirty but since we have that additional interaction with them p t a and potential rail maintenance during construction we opted a little bit we also wanted to make sure that the cost of the path was reasonable compared to other projects being constructed nearby in this district as well as in adjacent towns that are in district six so belmont in waltham or in district four cambridge is in district six so the path exclusive of crossing so i'm talking about the box over waverly station the bridge at that diagonal from the housing authority to the north side of the rail the any structure that may need to be developed at belmont center and the underpass that alexander avenue and those crossings in are recommended route which will show in just a minute the crossings alone are twelve and a half million the rest of the path the two plus miles of pa plantings amenities hard scape except for a r fifteen so you can see this is almost half crusher and half path and many other paths haven't had this level of structural component needed in order to traverse such a short segment so we did look at this on a per mile basis the belmont path coming in a little over thirteen million per mile is about midway between what district for his seen previously and what district six which i said includes cambridge has put cost too they are running some process high as twenty million per mile so based on this being right at the edge of district four and entering into and connecting district six we do think that makes sense the final thing that we did in meeting six to nine was as i said advanced our matrix to a point where we could evaluate all of these criteria in a way that made our recommendation as justified as possible as being the most feasible route so the matrix now includes twenty three criteria within five categories including user experience environmental and cultural impacts design attributes transportation and cost and then as part of the process and based on the feedback we got from the public and the departments we identified five fatal flaws and essentially any alternative that held a fatal flaw was not considered as part of the recommended route whether it was otherwise high ranking so even if it had an amazing score if it carried one of these fatal flaws that was eliminated from consideration so that included a direct impact to an existing residential do welling over five thousand square foot loss of high quality wetlands which is based on the state c r m half the location being infeasible for fire and safety to patrol or impeding access to other properties the town is responsible for being rejected by m b t n a or requiring excessive speculation at the time that we would need to make the recommendation to the board of selectmen or finally if the online meant crossed an intersection with the various negative conditions including excessive vehicular traffic volume multiple multiple approaches and conflict points ports like lines lack of signal or inability to add signals a or crossed five or more highly trafficked driveways within a short stretch so that is everything that happened previously from meetings two to nine we're now going to take you through the final scoring of the various alternatives show you which ones were dropped from consideration because of fatal flaws and then present the recommended routes which i'm sure you're all highly anticipating that we presented over several of these meetings and got feedback on what we want to point out right now is the user experience that includes ease of access the vix comfort directness vehicular conflicts and conflicts with pedestrian ways really rose to the top and it was very clear from public input that we received which included also all of the past duddies and past evaluations and input that the public had given at all the other meetings prior to the study we took all of that read every word of it and took it into consideration and so that was reflected very clearly that that criteria of user experience and each one of those elements should wait twice as high as the other evaluation items environmental and cultural impact include wetlands historic resources and mature woodland requirements that amy outlined earlier on those are all the requirements but these were additional tributes what might be necessary regarding encroached encroachments or u any agreements that might need to be made on to private land owners fire and safety needs that particularly came out of our meetings with the park and heads potential partnerships and distances to residential structures again reflecting input that we receive from the public transportation included connectivity destinations ease of universal public accessibility while everything the whole community  would be accessible it certainly is not as easy to access abuse have five ramps getting to it as it would be if it's at great access points additionally if it's going to consistent with the wayside trail mass central trail and other community regional plans impact on the existing transportation or traffic patterns and obviously conflicts and proximity to the rail was high criteria as well and finally within cost we looked at the range of construction costs them in the just outline that we developed for each and every one of those alternatives operation and maintenance based on our experience with these types of trails qualify the ability to qualify for funding was a criteria as well as bally you added if a particular alignment really added to the community as a whole it was ranked higher all of these criteria are in much greater detail in the information that was left on the table and then all of the information that's online to date all that's on line there or you so the scoring and how everything weighed out of walk through briefly here this is the west and as you can see coming out of beaverbrook we have thirty three and forty four crossing at the intersection as opposed to coming into waverl station the w six right at sixty three at waverly station we had quite a range going through the station rang to twenty six going through a park space right in eighty one using the sidewalks through the waverly station along the roads above that rank to sixty three on the north side of the rail alternative through the woods was just a fifteen whereas running to the north side  it was a fifty two or so that the seventy four it's actually the combination of the two and then on the south side of the rail right the fifty two on the west side as you can see there were no fatal flaws found in any of those alignment potential alignments moving to the central area there were very low scores to the potential  that came in through clark street their area as you come towards the be a that ranked of fifty two these are some of the other of these a w sorry that are coming in from the west side so continue at this the seal central alternatives this loop down to be restricted area is fifty nine coming on the north side you have a sixty seven and a fifty six as you're just on the north side  person street the crossings for clark showing several high rankings and then the ones that needed to go buzz a switchback and to have walls to  thank you very much on the north side of the tracks ranked in ninety three and then the alternative to be on row who woods road and not in the wetlands as amy pointed out this is ninety three so really at this point the north and the south side of the rail coming into belmont center really had similar rankings we have a very high ranking if we stay on the north side north north which is actually for a as well as the alternative to come from the south side loop under the existing tunnel and then cross and cross the north side however most of the other alternatives in the center right pretty low relative to that and here are the axis so the fatal flaws in the central area include the alternative to be on the south side of the rail coming near the clark street area we actually that alignment hits a residential drilling so that would immediately cancel out that being considered as part of a a full route as amy described additionally the alternatives in the belmont center that util that utilize the sidewalks  accurate at that intersection which would require the traffic light those were considered fatal flaws because of the need for the traffic light and the difficulty of that intersection moving onto coming up to the north in the wind brook neighborhood to forty one moving along the south here at the first part of this connection ranked as zero for of the all of the crossing us that's actually loops was or number associated with that one thing i will add to this because of after you run the math in the numbers we then distributed the numbers across one hundred percent so that made it very clear the higher in the lower rankings so i think that's one of the ways that the one c ended up by the zero but it had several crossings at several driveways which really ended up making at such a low alternative and then continuing that was a thirty seven bill turn and it was to come through the high school property was an eighty one and the alternative to run along the south side of the rail including the thirty seven plus seventy four the alternative as route center of only the alternative using the switch back ramp drop to lower the other two more straightforward approaches to the tunnel were higher ranked whether you drop down or come straight through and then as we get to brighton have the and the crossing at grade and adding a signal zation and plenty of warnings and pavement changes rose to the top as opposed to the two alternatives that used to raise structure over that area over that intersection so the fatal flaw as you mentioned before was in the spurs section here we also are putting a question mark only alternative that runs through the high school property as you know it's in the middle of being looked at and design will turn this for it which does make it very speculative however it's not off the table of their consideration so they may or may not take a look at that as they move forward so we didn't want to completely eliminated them at this point from the west to east or east to the west but it does not include anything that is a fatal flaw so those sections the seven three or whichever one that was that's a law office so no route is being considered that utilizes that section that has the fatal flaw so a group consent is considered a series link together so either all of these that come across to that direction or all of those pieces that come through here heard so once we looked at all of the different weights and in some areas it was very close like happening said in the area near the royal road woods between clark street and belmont center there were two that were both ninety three but we also had to work out where are they coming from and what are they going to so to the west of that there were some very high and very low scoring ones that made it more favorable to be on the north side versus the south side so all that played into the recommended route so i'm on a walk through this from end to end you probably don't need to pay too much attention to all of the letters at the top but what it means is we would start on the north side of the rail at the w town line continue to waverly station build the box over which we've incorporated in the recommended route to provide those two signalized crossings that parks makes space that community enhanced meant that gets us to the south side of the rail where we would stay along a few of the adjacent to some of the residential properties along white a and the streets diagonal structure to the north side of the rail which is also the south side of pleasant street we would stay there and again run in jason two i believe it's three residential properties before getting to the police station and white building parcel and then we would come at level with the westbound platform for the belmont center station we would cross using the existing con structure and stay on the north side on the belmont citizens form property up to alexander out at that point we would cross under the rail using the underpass that was shown and to the high school impact as we noted in alternatives previously the minimum offset in minimum path with does not fit on that south side without some impact to that building and then we would approach brighton street and cross grade with those signalized crossings the signage and the pavement markings to connect to the existing fitchburg path or if it continues to move forward this also allows us to connect to a pedestrian bridge and that may exist on the south side of the rail in the future continuing to the east so that is the recommended route it was the highest ranking for multiple reasons in these various areas as i hope you've kind of gotten a feel for as we walk through this and as we've gone through the study as a whole it has a highest value cost of approximately twenty eight million dollars which is we showed in the cost per mile makes sense based on our location just at the edge of district four district six it also allows for all of the spurs that we identified in the study to be constructed at a later point in time so the connection from the north side of the rail into the beaver brook reservation the connection from the west side the i'm sorry the east side of the d p w parcel down midland to be treat center in town field a connection through the high school to of the amenities on concord ave and then chain area middle farther to the south as well as the connection up to when elementary so all of those although they are not selected as the recommended group could be built as spurs off of this recommended group there are a few parcels that this touches that are currently under evaluation by the town or may become unusable so if those things continue to pursue in a way that will not accommodate the path we have to contingent routes that i'll walk you through now so if the eastern end right here becomes a no go with all of the stuff going on in that area we may need to switch to the north side of the rail so we would be on the north side that has a higher cost and its highest option as i said there is still potential to build less of the walls that will continue to progress as this project moves into preliminary and final design in a butters meetings are held and those exact separations and buffers and amenities are flushed out but this is the highest potential construction cost that we've calculated for that grou the second contingent group has to do with the d p w property so that is also being investigated by the town for reconstruction for its uses and its layout so if that parcel i for some reason enabled to accommodate the path as we've recommended it the fallback there is to cross using that paper's tree identified as an extension of white street and come near the car wash and the stock market we would cross to that side we would have an at grade signalize crossing a pleasant street come along the north side of pleasant we have to cross pleasant again right near the clark street bridge and then continue on the north side and pick up the rest of the recommended group so those are the two contingent this one carries the lower of the three c between the three we are in a twenty five to thirty two million dollar range so included with our recommendation not only are we recommending that route and these two contingent options we are also about how this power could potentially be funded and it's been a part of this was their recommendation to us and then we're carrying through that recommendation to the town try to go in for the full funding figure out what the cost is for the route and the maximum we think it could come out to be based on the design so those higher cost of the options going for the total funding amount but be prepared for phase  so if the town says master we need thirty two million dollars to build this path and master says we only have sixteen available the town wants to say final ticket and let's continue moving forward so in order to phase this project we recommend doing it only in two parts don't break it out more than that because that gets us the most reasonable connections if wal fam continues to move forward with their component of the way side trail ahead of this which is where they are now they are already in pulmonary design if that is on the ground then we could start off of that connection and build the half to belmont center first and build the eastern portion later which would allow the town to continue to flush out what's going on with the high school property and then see where things fit on this side whether we go with the full recommended route or if we have to substitute two contingent group one  alternatively if the town would rather get more users up front which would likely come from the connection to cut off path we could start at the east end and built to the center of town as phase one and built the western half liter but that is the recommendation for phasing to just look at it in those two those two long segments starting from an existing point in getting to belmont cent another recommendation is if possible consider if any component of this path could be allocated to other projects that the town is doing whether it be the v w project or the light street i'm sorry the white building reconstruction or the high school there are other projects going on in town that this recommended route touches that could potentially absorb some of this cost and reduce the amount needed from master or state agencies and finally if the town indicates this as a priority project it helps with the funding from any state agency my final recommendation is to try to construct as many of those first as possible because it will get you the greatest user base and make the most community connection basically giving you the best bang for your buck get the most people as you can connected to this path since it's going to be a large amenity within town so if we go in for thirty two million dollars say and then design moves forward and through a butters meetings and more public engagement we end up meeting some of those lower cost options but you've already funded thirty two you may be able to build some of these spurs with that differential so we have put costs to those alternatives previously defined that we are now identifying as great spurs and additional connections for the town so you can see here connection to be we're broke connection a town field and beach street center connection the concord ave amenities and connection to the one book elementary school are the recommendations of the study as ross said i hope that's not a surprise to anyone i really feel like this was a sensible conclusion based on where all of the previous meetings have presented and the feedback that we got and the incorporation of all of that feedback corp consideration of all of that feedback to the extent possible merged with our previous experience and technical capability so what's next this is the culmination of the feasibility study and the consultant element as russ said we are going to submit following this meeting because we want to make sure that notes and input from this meeting are also included in that report we're going to submit the final report for their consideration it includes everything you're saw tonight this was almost piecemeal of the report itself  and then the town and the c p i i see will continue to move this forward so as russ mentioned following hopefully acceptance of our recommendations they will present those to the board of  selectmen so there's board of selectmen review winter of this year town then needs to pursue funding for pullin area and final design well that can sometimes be partially absorbed by d c r and r grants it is uncommon to be funded by master or m bta or other state agencies so the preliminary and final design funding is the first piece that needs to be secured moving that into next year and once the funding is identified then they could issue an r f p and select a consultant team similar to what they did for this study and then you get into your preliminary and final design which will probably take at least a year and a half to two years to go through all the components of that following design so now once this has advanced to the next step you have one finite route you design it to plan spec and estimate when you're ready for construction you need to prepare that funding so that is the point where you are very likely to be able to get state agencies  involved primarily mascot from the state level and then construction so this is an ideal schedule for no potential to have this on the ground in about five years looking at that idea only so i already said this a couple times but i want to point it out again this is not the end of the public in gauge mn as this continues to move forward one c p ac recommends a route to the board of selectmen and the border selectmen make a decision on what the ultimate route will be we move into preliminary and final design those still have public in gauge human aspects to them those will have a bothers meetings technically we need one group in order to identify the appropriate potters so you really can't even have a butters meetings until that point but then renderings will be continued to be made that can continue to pursue very likely in smaller groups so you'll have direct input in what is included in like i said the amenities the buffering the plantings the fence type so at this point we want to open it up to discussion feel free to ask kathleen tonight any questions about any part of the study from where we started last year to where we are today i also like i said at this point the study is going to start to move forward with the c p i i see in the town so i want people feel free to ask them questions at this point to so long as ross is fine i know that yes absolutely go ahead we had all had an opportunity to review and for a variety of reasons we decided not to do that as a committee so again you may very well be right maybe it is a public record and maybe you can get it from the town i will i will  step back from that but but the committee decided not interested so that's that's why that's why we're not going to so but but again we do have to have the final study in hand you know relatively soon we will be meeting after after having an opportunity to review that study and hopefully we will be voting to approve it at that point we will be posting it on on the website  so but again you know it is what you what you've seen here is certainly in my opinion very reflective of what is contained in the study itself so there's that also just just is really not even the end of the beginning of this process right like the end of the beginning will be i think when the board is like it has a chance to to weigh in on this and a ccept hopefully the recommendations of the feasibility study and charge us or some similar committee or with with moving forward with this but so i hope that happens and i would love to see that timeline check out but just you know want to manage expectations to this is there's a lot a lot of work to be to be done on this so anyway i do want to thank the console in milan and appreciate all the work they've done i hope you learned from the process i certainly hope so thank you all i do want to point out there are i thought there were two mikes but i guess there's one mike so if you have comments questions please come to the mike we are being recorded by belmont media we want to make sure everything is captured if you have any issue with getting up we can bring in mike to you hi my name's ellen sugarman my question is i know with the library feasibility study there was i don't remember the amount but i call it escalator clause the idea that if it's done in this timeframe but for every six months or year gets pushed out it's expected to increase by x dollars i didn't hear anything about that so that is true the the amount shown are in current year dollars if we expect construction to take place in three years they should be escalated as ross said it's hard to identify how long it will be before we get to that so the amount of escalation needed is relatively undetermined but it's close to the cost of living increase per year could there be i understand what you're saying but could there at least be a reference in it that you know  yes it gets pushed out so so in the report we define the costs we define the values as they said we know that it does not include right away and that what he said that there's and so if negotiations need to take place with any of the properties that the path would traverse as kathleen mentioned memorandums of understanding small land strip takes whatever they may be those costs are not included in the construction costs so right away costs need to be added and then inflation needs to be considered for however much time this is put off until construction thank you thank you   to not go all the way starting off in the north and then you're depending upon something happening at the alexander underpass and then taking so a few of the highlights of what made that the recommended  route there is a higher cost to be on the north side potentially due to those walls and the buffering in the separation that may be required also the south side is more accessible from a fire and safety perspective since the high school property is relatively open compared to having to come through some of the back yards of the changing room residences as well as if those walls were ever built then fire and safety needs access every three hundred feet so there was  that also master had identified to us that the alexander underpass itself seems to serve the high school more than the path unless the path crosses there so from a funding perspective that was also considered the fact that they that component of it which has a decent dollar sign to it may not be eligible for state funding unless it really is a component of the path  underpass and the connection to concord be included regardless what the root is thank you there would have one other thing about the north side versus the south side and cutting it that alexander  connection the first portion of the south side relies on being able to get to it at belmont center so as it played out coming up an over on a cross on the south side of the historic bridge ranked so low that that first half of the south side is was so much lower that it pretty much are two large components of it one is the design which i said is likely to be a year and a half to two years just to get it through the process including an additional public engagement process as we get into the as it goes into the design  and then the other is hopefully during that timeframe in the ideal scenario we have all of those memorandums of understanding parcel our agreements whatever needs to be  assume that that will happen during the design phase so overlap there and then construction itself i mean this is a large project so where estimating about two years for that so it's hard to consolidate it more than that  i think the only way it could maybe move forward quicker is if it didn't need as much state agency interaction but i'm pretty sure the only way you get to that is to have it completely town funded which is thirty two million dollars so based on its population size and its needs up to a certain amount so not to say that this would preclude the town from being able to do any other project but if this was identified like to master this is very very important to us we want to get it done we want to make sure that it's funded then that gives mastitis sense like ok might have x amount in the pot and this is a priority for them so we're going to allow it and then you just have structural aspects or yeah it would really start to depend on how the different things come together because if something on the west end has a higher cost option that become like the box over and then on the side you don't build the walls and you keep the embank you're probably ending up with part low cost part high cost but it's it's all going to factor in and then part of what's going to drive the construction timeline is m b t and they may want to move it is expeditiously as possible because if there are any will or will help or hinder the time frame you know i think you know obviously the first the first thing you know is is is for for the board of selectmen to you know endorse the recommendation and presentation the the design portion of this will have to be down funded right that's not something where there's a big pot of money waiting out there to be gotten so that you know you know the official we can apply for the for the state funding right like that that is something that we as a community have to some extent in our in our control and so we just emphasize that that that's you know that's how we that's how we get it started right like we may not be able to move the big the big stuff but the around the edges i think we folks collectively can have can ha ranked tend to get most or almost all i can't really put a number to it but it's possible that it could be entirely state funded on the construction site as ross said the the design will still most likely be incurred by the t how expensive design it's really estimated to be about ten percent of the construction costs so close to could be in the three million range money for those other projects so it's not essentially all of his money for the path it's all going to give you some money but you know i mean use it for this project you have to use it for the correct every project is assessed individual so that's why i'm saying building this is not going to preclude you from being able to build something else the state has certain money allotted to paths so they're looking at all the applications for path projects for pa funding but they're also looking at the total amount that every town gets so it's it's considered both ways it's considered as the pot for paths it's also considered to some extent for the total amount that one town may it's it's can it's the town needs to make it clear that this is very important that it's at least as important as all the transportation projects so that mass stop being a transportation agency is going to look at this and say the town is really trying to and hence their like the right away and any fees associated with procuring that right away are not included in the numbers that were presented think it's a great recommendation but in the board of selectmen i talked to my colleague that we intend to consider this in december and hopefully mov or a meeting prior to that is that we don't need to designate either the c p i ac or probably a new committee whatever acronym we want to use because i think some folks of like c p i ac to move this forward to the next of the funding phase and i think representative rogers is here i think we'll find the money from the state perspective at least on the construction cost because this is really as i understand it as vince the end can continue to tell me the missing link between cambridge and waltham and so i think it will be funded whether we can find the funding for feasibility you know over the next several months we'll have to determine that to me this is a priority and one with everything else of course we have a high school to build and we're looking at other major building projects but there's such strong support for community pouting down one as a member of the board of selectmen i would not represent those interests if i didn't consider this a perri and i think it is so thanks again for you great w yeah you were eluded to this in two thousand and thirteen the central transportation planning staff of the boston m p o published a critical gap analysis in which they ranked two hundred thirty two gaps in the path network within roughly room for ninety five the top scoring gap was in somerville between mole street and cedar street this gap was completed eighteen months after that study was published and the belmont to waverly square segment from waltham to where the square was the second highest scoring of the two hundred thirty two just  waverly square station had some modest amount of work done to the platform several years ago that triggered the end of a of a waiver all of the old stations are under a waiver to comply with years without another extension from the architectural access board for the station we have to be closed belmont center station because there's not been any work done is not in the same status nonetheless the  policy is that of course they want to bring all stations into eighty eight compliance now your box over structure that way for the station you didn't go in to the details but in includes elevators bring you from the level of what would be a new park at street level down to the platform and similarly in belmont center you would connect the street to the north side of the the train platform so it seems to me that with the addition of a mini high platform at where we've really and belmont center those two train stations could actually be brought up to eighty eight compliance in the manner in which the m t a has brought all of the redline stations for example into compliance in the last fifteen or so years they talk about building a high platform but on these commuter lines that's really just when they want to build a straw man argument for some gigantic number so it seems to me that the project as designed is enormously synergistic with the goal of bringing the two stations into compliance ensuring that those stations will be available for commuters hopefully they would be used more than they are now because of the multi modal connections that would be put in place with the bike and pedestrian connections and so  question his it seems to me that the part that the design of the path as it traverses the stations or is on the border of the stations might be something that with the help of our elected representatives we could encourage mass daughter of the n p t to see as part of something they ought to pay for so that's a that's i think a significant piece of the overall budget and therefore also a significant piece of the design budget so the overall design numbers still high big number for with all the other capit expenses we have in front of us and so i just i just want to go out on the road so that that is inherent in the design for both of those stations we did kind of gloss over those although we've defined in the past so to expand even a little bit for further at waverley station the full box over park design includes elevators down to the platform and also in a includes as you approach the station from the west a split essentially where the path comes up to touch lexington and down to the west platform so it would actually have access ability from both a ramp and an elevator perspective we could build the same type of ramp to access the eastbound platform so there is potential for the path to give those two types of access at waverley station at belmont center the path as recommended would directly connect to the north side the westbound platform there is still the under pass that allows access to the eastbound platform but i believe there is not currently access to the eastbound platform on the south side at some stations depending on the speed allows for it essentially a bridge over the track and you can walk across the two platforms although it's kind of rare so we would have to see if that could be allowed at that station to give what we've designed for the path excess ability to both platforms otherwise there would still need to be some something done to make we can we can certainly as follow on to vince's comment about the with the construction on the waverly platform couple of years ago not realising that it triggered something could any of this that you're proposing be really change the situation the improvements through belmont center we may need to figure that out so technically we are just so i know that they paved right over the existing platforms all of the improvements that we are proposing are adjacent to the platform although they would allow access directly to the platform so i think it's reasonable that that would not trigger it but just to make sure we don't end up in the same situation  of the all of the towns or the overall completion date that they're targeting there are nearby such as waltham and weston a few of them just to the west past will fam are working with  it's not a national grid source ever source thank you working with ever source to put in paths in areas where the old corridor is now a electric carter and basically it would serve as like ever source is access road in the past simultaneously so there are a few towns that are advancing that route they essentially have a design that's working off of a typical section so i would say they are into design in could probably start construction soon those couple towns west of walt am waltham is in the design so they're into what we showed is that approximately eighteen month timeframe for design itself and then moving into construction wall fams there like the three million dollars per mile range but they have not had nearly this complexity because they're going through areas that aren't as dense aren't as close to active rail don't require the crossings it's essentially just the path part of it so when we looked at that breakdown the path itself was about twelve million dollars and is over two miles so if you just built the path you're in like a five to six million dollar a mile range it's the shockers in the complexity that make it higher so that's why just wondering if we're the only tell it sorry bonnie friedman precinct three are we the only town that is on the cusp between these two to have these kind of issues because i'm assuming the district four's like really much more suburban yeah i think it's the only town on the cusp that's a part of the mass central rail trail because you're coming in that used to westin you are the point where you cross from the forty six as you go around boston scary so when we looked at that the minimum offset m b t requires is fifteen feet in the minimum path with is eight so that's twenty three feet twenty three feet from the rail is partially into that building so we've identified that as a negotiation that needs to happen with that property owner we think there is potential that it would only impact the portion of the building that it's actually going through there was a spur that used to come into that building kind of like a loading bay style area so that this this potential it would only impact that part but as the process moves into design that's one of the oem is that we need to be structurally reviewed and in designed appropriately to see how that building wants to continue function based on the owner and what we can do to accommodate their uses which is why one of the reasons why we have those think creatively so it could be anything from an architectural solution where it moves through it to you know who knows to partial demolition there's no need for all of the space you that tiny town meeting precinct one i have a question couple of questions about the spurs it seems like those are totally important get into joey's park and the library and the pool and generally middle school and so on so it's on the one hand it seems like that if we don't sell it with that it's going to sound to some people like just a commuter path and the other thing is what do you have in for how to get to those places because that brings up all the problems we've talked about with concord ave and driveways and so on so the the spur that would come into beaverbrook was a previously defined alternative we were showing the short boardwalk over the wind area and the potential correct connection to marine in addition so that was there i'm going to bring back up that side with those costs as well so as i mentioned previously the recommended route has a high cost of twenty eight million dollars in the whoa and we could save at least three to five million and that would capture all of the spurs so that's why i'm saying i think we need to go in for full funding of the twenty eight if that is the approved an accepted and defined route and then as things move forward into design any savings could help you build the spurs in the onset with the initial funding because that would already be in place so the spring to beaver brook we've defined as one of the alternatives it has a good connection it doesn't have many issues it would need that boardwalk over the  one to town field as long as the recommended route is constructed and we're on the property we could then come down the east side of the d v w to the middle and and then we recommend widening that sidewalk to accommodate people connecting to town field in the beech tree center if the contingent of two needs to be chosen where we avoid the d p w property and switch to the north this connection can't be made without another crossing of the rail which is very complicated the third one the connection to concord ave as we said any alternative in this area we think should carry this through the high school property and then add a signalized intersection at concord ave to get you to the south side so it doesn't need people to be running all warm conquered ave or biking along concord ave which was identified as a very high traffic volume you just need to cross at that one signalized area to get from a southern neighborhood to the high school or from a northern neighborhood to all the amenities along concord ave and then the last one that we had shown with the study was  connection to wynberg elementary that so here's a typical section you could just run option arm in and build a wide sidewalk and essentially make that connection from the north side of the rail at alexander out  to up to the elementary school that one would definitely qualify for safe routes to school funding as well if it did not fit within the funding of this connection between schools to a school from other and i'm also speaking on saturday at the state wide trails conference on a panel with weston and wayland and whalen does have a short piece constructed it's not paved but it is in use and mice and i believe just starting that that there is an easement that french and mahoney granted to d c are for the north side of the tracks now it's definitely not as wide as it ought to be definitely got all sorts of other problems but it does exist so it's not as if your coat would be the only option so they are not the be all end all of the path by any means as we mentioned that is part of contingent route one you know either the high school property or pure escape becomes an even feasible portion and that is the backup there is enough for him to fit the minimum offset in the minimum path with a recent a french mahoney in that easement it would have impact to their operations now but it was something that they granted previously so they had to grant it you know there was that they needed a state permit and they had to grant it so i think the other thing that's important to point out is that going on that nor mahoney's we keep the path on the north side all the way through and would not necessarily include a tunnel at alexander a very good point i appreciate if that funding would be invaluable for that connection if the path stays on the north side the whole way so that's something to be considered oh absolutely and you know no it's about a negotiating rather than you know but thank you very much the rail there as we come fast the parking lot of the b h a and then cross from the west side of the b h a office building to the north side of the track so we would not be coming through the neighborhood there which the b h administration told us they thought would be a detriment to the neighborhood we did also look out when we did the detail of this if there would be any parking spaces lost and if there were ways that we could replicate any of those wall spaces so we do have a way to extend that there was a strip down this way on the west end just extend out a little bit further it technically goes partially on the d p w and but to replicate the number of spaces that they have today and not have them have any loss of park and what kind of screening did you propose so as this comes over the rail as i mentioned a few times it has to be relatively high twenty two and a half feet so that is going to start to climb from the d p w and you can see this little spot stub here we want to make sure that the people from the housing authority over they may not want to go through their neighborhood could still access it so right from the point where they access it it would start to essentially form a little bit of a sound barrier to the rail which may actually give them a little bit of a benefit from the noise that they hear today and then as i said when we looked at the impacts to this parking lot we assume that we would at least align it with some type of planting potentially some small trees to give them a little bit of buffer from the visual of that structure great thank you  the i am roy up stein a chair of the warren committee in belmont in a town meeting member from precinct six so i taking quite an interest in this project i guess since over a year ago i was part of the initial walks are wrong along some of the potential ro and i have actually some concerns about build ability in certain segments and i'm inferring that you have some of the same concerns that maybe have only emerged kind of recently because when the study began one of the parameters was that the town that the land be available and which ruled out certain possibilities  because the town for example didn't own the land so it but now we're in a situation where one of the proposed routes goes by pure code and initially i gather your belief was that there was just this issue of kind of a shed or siding or a porch that was not really structural but in fact when you go down at least half a length of that building it's not just a shed it's actually it's the exterior wall of building it's a structural wall and the distance from that wall to the track is only twenty two feet so that means so that's suddenly puts it in a totally different frame because now actually you would have to get the owner to agree to have his building demolished or sell the whole parcel or something which is a big deal but that issue i'm concerned actually comes up in other parts as well in your proposal and my question at this stage is are these sketches that you have the greatest level of detail that you have or do you have a zoom in on these routes so we can see the the actual parcels and a greater level of detail for me for example the bridge  behind the proposed bridge behind the belmont housing authority i measured that out it's approximately two hundred seventy five feet long at a height of twenty two feet and it's not just us it's not just crossing the tracks like when you go through newton and you have lots of bridges across the mass pike those max height bridges are only about one hundred fifty feet long this is two hundred seventy five feet going at a very difficult angle and the parcels that abut are very irregularly shaped and so there's a real question of how the bridge could be built as not to overhang somebody's backyard and not interfere with the trains because there would need to be support structures the bridges and all that so they're i guess my two concerns right now are there there's an enormous level of engineering complexity to make some of this work and your landing for example even at that bridge or landing on the pleasant street side on a very sheer slope slope it might be as much as forty five or sixty degrees completely designed through final design but we have had structural engineers look at all of the crossings they looked at the walls that would need to be included in order to support the abutments on both ends the length of them and the loads that they're going to be and those were all driving the depth of those structures and the cost that we've attributed to them so we did take into consideration the approaches the about ment's the length and the loads from a structural perspective and we've also spoken with and bta as far as what the costs are that we're carrying and their proximity to the rail and as i said they have not ruled out any options either they think that everything that's them been presented so far i reasonable in the cost being carried for the the magnitude of the infrastructure i would because i think the point you bring up is very good that at this level of design which is only if is ability study and as amy pointed out it's based on g i aspace with with property lines on them granted but it's not a field survey so it will take a field survey before anyone knows how exactly and what angle and you know if there's over and over hang or other things that we'll want to consider so all of those are great questions that will absolutely have to be answered in the next phase of design but in addition that's one of the reasons why we have two alternatives is because we understand those complexities and that we might need to look at a crossing that stranger instead of more diagonal under certain it's a great because the i've looked at some old maps and the the original central mass railroad which went through there had this narrative these the strange strip works it's a narrow strip of land th to the tracks and a great stroke of bad luck those two part there are two parcels that are basically they stretch out for some hundreds of yards they were sold the parcels that you're mentioning have dwellings but the dwellings are not near one of them is a very very long l shape in the other one comes out towards the track there are as we mentioned parcels that will need agreements they may need strip takes we've made sure we will not have any residential dwelling impacts that got this in the residential is just it's just privately owned right it's right not worth very much yet somebody owns it yeah so we've also through as kathleen said it's just as much as we know it from g i s but we've compared the g i s to the assessor's database and identified for each of the three routes all of the parcels that would require negotiations or conversations or whatever ok just bring it up because when this process started one of the assumptions was at the the land would be available but now we have yet there there is now at both ends of the prop of the way the old railroad right away has been segmented in sold off as you mentioned there is no route through town that could be entirely town owned or they're just that yeah there's there's no way to string together just parcels that are under town  rview and i guess my last question for this evening is and you've done a huge amount of work how much of this work product is conveyed to the to the town when when it's all done this is remain your work product or do you turn it over to the town the appendix he saw the report i believe incorporate everything that we've gone through they have been about cost estimates they have the what about the native computer files that would have the generally speaking that's a design an owner quite a question right so as designers and and our clients it really depends on the contract and how it's written in the nitty gritty but we're partners with the town and if they need any images we i just just a quick comment right i just want to make clear that i don't i don't think that this process ever started with the assumption that there would be no impact on in the property ever because as the consultants mention it truly is impossible to pick out a route through town where there there isn't that i mean even you know i mean we're talking about m b t alien that's not time land either right like the a ton of this is on so i just i just want to make clear that that was not the premise i think i don't know sorry ross i said that only because one of the first documents i think said lack of ownership for lack of a better term was  flaw see i think and kathleen to clarify this a little bit because she talked about it out link that one of the public meetings the different sorts of impacts that may occur what was deemed a federal flaw was a impact to a private residential do well right that was a fatal flaw and and it did end up actually coming into play and then in the ranking short of that there are a ton of different impacts that are that are possible to necessary flush and no you and there were multiple stages there of whether it was just a temporary easement needed on either a residential or commercial property a strip taken needed on residential property take needed on commercial property rights so when i say we i said you're sure but we are where we are at this point but right so you're you're right so there's there's five levels of impact  when we decide on the fatal flaw it was for a residential development multifamily or otherwise single family it doesn't matter there are less points given if it's has to cross a residential ceterus a so there's degrees and that's all written in what's available online additionally there's such a complexity to everyone and i say this for everyone not just for yourselves but for every time we build something even if it's a budding someone's property there might be the need for construction easement where we just need some property to regrade and then we did you see that in the property only it has nothing on it in the end there are memorandum of understanding where there is no taking at all there is an understood legal written document and the owner and the town come to an understanding of how that land will be used in who will have the liabilities so the range of those are such that there would be no way out a fuse ability study level to see states in for the town because they're the ones that will need to make those decisions ultimately what that negotiation is which is why we have made recommendations that while it goes over properties and not all and we have left it open for the town then to pursue those the huge challenge of course is how to make it real and if nothing else you know if design costs are anything like ten percent of the construction and i'm not sure how to think and yes i have not taken a survey of the other families in the precinct but i'm betting that if i did and i could see that there are a large percentage of them would say that a big selling point for this whole process is the potential for a tunnel and i understood from one of the things you said a little while ago that some of the potential you know have to changes have to change that would the need for the tunnel you know take away the need for the tenth of the tunnel so i'm wondering in my jumbled questions sort of way because i don't recall or it didn't completely understand all of the different pieces that went into th that needs the tunnel to be constructed in order for that were to be built the subsequent one if we cannot be on the high school property and then jump to the north for the  glance if you care how many people are down here that may want to use the path you could probably still say that we need to get that many people to the path in order to use it for transportation purposes e a so we would still argue that you should build this as part of the path but just their initial reaction was the town wants it so high schoolers can get right because as we know that they're currently doing it in a very unsafe way so another thing i want to point out because this is come up twice now about the creeps again if the path comes this way the high school does permit and for some reason you can't make this negotiation it's a very short stretch and one of the other possibilities was to come down the aisle to the high school and want him and i think that's a very short differen plans to comment on that but i'm just saying if if this is the recommended route and that is the only obstacle you have options you could maybe do that you could jump directly to this and that may be hinged on whether or o obviously using the underpass as an actual part of the path increases the likelihood of one right like that is that is that is very clear obviously figured to some extent and to that town will push forward and make the best case that could make it to to have an underpass be a part of this project wherever the alt ends up and i think i think we will have a good case to make and certainly i will hope that our elected representatives of the town level and at the state level will assist us in that endeavor i believe that they will  but i think you know even if you just look at m p o those scoring matrix for how they evaluate these things you know one of the one of the criteria is like solving an existing trespassing problem right that's literally one of the criteria so you know we're we're going to have a case to make i think regardless of of which side it's on but but i think clearly if it's a part of the and then integral part of the path it's a better  thank you all for your continued interest i know many of you have been to several of these meetings