GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[crs1026]

If I was Metrolinx this would be my rationale:

- and finally a selfish one...I assume the VP's that are moving all live in the Oakvil area

The only surprise is that they would build it so close to a parking garage. Control centres - as opposed to corporate offices - are supposed to have land around them, for security. I wonder what the Risk Assessment people think.

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

The TTC equivalent is right on the corner of Davenport Road and Bathurst Street. The grounds are secured, but the building Transit Control is housed in isn't exactly Fort Knox.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The TTC equivalent is right on the corner of Davenport Road and Bathurst Street. The grounds are secured, but the building Transit Control is housed in isn't exactly Fort Knox.

Perhaps it is time to take security a bit more seriously.

AoD

 

[ShonTron]

I personally don't think that's necessary. Failure of the signals or automatic train control - caused by the worst case scenario you're thinking of at a transit control centre - would cause a shutdown of the subway until the signal system is back up. A major power outage could do the same thing.

Sure, security is important, but I think the TTC Transit Control, with restricted access, security systems, and 24 hour hour staff, is secure enough for the purpose it has and does not have to be Fort Knox. I'm sure the GO Transit Oakville centre will be as well.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

DVPR - point taken.

AoD

 

[smallspy]

The TTC equivalent is right on the corner of Davenport Road and Bathurst Street. The grounds are secured, but the building Transit Control is housed in isn't exactly Fort Knox.

Maybe not Fort Knox, but that building is very heavily secured/fortified. Nevermind Joe Blow off of the street - most TTC employees (including those already stationed in Hillcrest) are incapable of accessing the building.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[crs1026]

I personally don't think that's necessary. Failure of the signals or automatic train control - caused by the worst case scenario you're thinking of at a transit control centre - would cause a shutdown of the subway until the signal system is back up. A major power outage could do the same thing.

Sure, security is important, but I think the TTC Transit Control, with restricted access, security systems, and 24 hour hour staff, is secure enough for the purpose it has and does not have to be Fort Knox. I'm sure the GO Transit Oakville centre will be as well.

I would be more worried about the IT infrastructure and any other key business systems that might be resident there. Could Presto be taken out by a malicious act? How long would it take to restore it?

We are still a very civil country, but I know enough about Business Continuity audits and Risk Assessment processes to know that someone would have been tasked to think about these things. Unobtrosive measures like bollards to prevent automobiles from being driven right up to buildings are pretty common. Never mind criminal acts - the smoke from a good sized car fire would be a business risk at that proximity.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

I noticed this line in this article:

"Meanwhile, in nearby Hamilton, new railroad tracks leading into the West Harbour GO station are scheduled to go live later this year."

Thanks for the tidbit!

 

[steveintoronto]

Getting back to 'lighting a fire' under the reorganizing of UPX and the GO Weston Corridor, MD wrote:
[As for the UPX, they really need to rebrand the UPX EA as a RER Pearson EA, given that UPX has unified fares to GO and might be merged in. .... The electrification could end up being cancelled if the electorate sees further polishing of a white elephant, instead of a conversion to a public transit alternative.]

With the federal budget now aimed at cities and transit infrastructure, (and note, *cities* not provinces) here's Tory's chance to take ownership again (somewhat) of the SmartTrack *brand* by offering the City to 'sponsor' UPX becoming the backbone of RER West. MD is exactly right, the plebes are getting inpatient for something tangible in improvements, or at least *progress towards improvement* in the next couple of years. Whether Tory's plan was do-able or not belies the point of it being very popular. So City offers a share of that Fed direct to City infusion to the province. Is Queen's Park going to say no? The Feds are also offering to pay *half* of infrastructure/rolling stock costs at this time. So the City can also state to the province: (Words to the effect of) "We'll pay a quarter, you pay a quarter and the Feds will pay half. Let's get this rolling!". The province couldn't be happier, City wins, province wins, Feds win. And commuters win!

So far, not a word from anyone on this, and yet, albeit I'm preaching to the converted here, it's so freakin' obvious! Even if it takes leasing in DMUs in the interim until the electrification (which we all know won't be on time), let's get the beginnings of Bramalea south RER happening now. Electrification can happen later. And those VIA trains running with just two coaches? That sets a precedent as to sustainable labour costs for running three car DMUs on RER Weston Corridor. Although it's an entirely other discussion, it renders the high platform/low platform debate somewhat moot...*at least for that section of RER at this time*. There's even the possibility of leased-in DMUs (Tier 4 compliant so that can't become an issue, some presently available lease stock from the UK would have to have engines changed out or upgraded, over half the European DMUs run on that engine) can run concurrently with the present Sharyos (UPX). Whatever, the point remains: Let's get that corridor happening now, not in the theoretical future.

Edit to Add: Here is "the engine" I forgot to fully reference. This engine is not new, the "R variation" is an adaptation to bring it to Tier 4 specs. This engine is used in the majority of European DMUs and some light rail units:
[...][Proven Track Record For DMUs
The QSK19-R already comes with an enviable reputation for uptime reliability well proven in DMU intercity operations in Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia and China. A population of more than 1,700 railcars powered by the QSK19-R makes this by far the most successful underfloor railcar engine in the industry. ][...]
http://cumminsengines.com/cummins-qsk19r-to-power-nippon-sharyo-dmu

I don't know how much Metrolinx is invested in the ability to service this engine, but whatever the investment, that means leasing or buying competitive *light DMUs* that use the same engine can only mean lowered costs for maintenance and service.

And to get really out on a branch: An inserted section in the Bombardier LRVs for the LRTs being ordered for a limited number of vehicles which could also be dual voltage low DC/high AC could power those LRVs by being the prime motor driving an alternator. The interoperability of the LRV fleet on RER tracks would radically alter what is possible for routings in Toronto and surrounding cities. Yes, into Karlsruhe territory, I realize, but the bottom line for the Weston Corridor is to examine new concepts, and do it now, while Fed money is being offered.

At the very least, that Cummins engine in a lighter vehicle, or in a 'trailer' section powering a light EMU would out-accelerate and brake the Nippon Sharyos. The 'diesel power section' could be removed when electrification becomes a reality.

 

[gweed123]

The issue with rebranding UPX as an RER line is the vehicles themselves (especially the interiors) are considerably more "upscale" than a current GO train, and will probably still be more upscale than what will likely be used for RER. By using UPX as a showcase for RER, you're creating a false equivalency, since the UPX vehicles, and the bells and whistles that come with them, won't be on any other lines.

By branding UPX as RER, you're basically saying "this is what RER is, isn't it great?!". And then what happens when the first true RER train starts rolling along Lakeshore? PR nightmare. UPX is a Cadillac, while RER is a Chevy Malibu. Still not a bad car by any means, but if you were promised one and got delivered another, you may not be happy.

 

[mdrejhon]

And to get really out on a branch: An inserted section in the Bombardier LRVs for the LRTs being ordered for a limited number of vehicles which could also be dual voltage low DC/high AC could power those LRVs by being the prime motor driving an alternator. The interoperability of the LRV fleet on RER tracks would radically alter what is possible for routings in Toronto and surrounding cities. Yes, into Karlsruhe territory, I realize, but the bottom line for the Weston Corridor is to examine new concepts, and do it now, while Fed money is being offered.

Tram-trains to replace UPX? Like trains similar to LRTs using the GO network?

They'll need to be high performing to keep the same timetables. Most tram-trains can't run 140kph, which Both the UPX and BiLevels are capable of reaching. Regularly, Lakeshore West expresses briefly hit 140-145kph -- the whole diesel 12 coach. Tram trains are unable to support this performance so it will could be a light EMU lighter than the BiLevels but heavier than LRVs. There are some routes where tram-trains could make sense but I'm not 100% sure that the GO network could go that light. Even the non-FRA lightweight EMUs have much bigger structural strength than Flexity Freedoms, and it is possible that Transport Canada may have some kind of a "lite" structural rule, like reinforced shock absorbing bumper pads added to the front/rear of even lighter trains. Admittedly, there are some tram-train LRT vehicles in Europe that goes onto heavy rail corridors and then back onto streets, all with lovely seats, more comfortable than the GO trains, albiet not as comfortable as UPX.

For the transition to EMUs, I am open to ideas, but I have a slightly different vision utilized a unified UPX+RER+ST fleet, as follows:

I see hints of RER Bramalea-Stoufville possibly being destined to eventually (through a series of obvious decisions) gradually merge RER/ST/UPX. Basically a RER with SmartTrack and UPX elements. You just have to look at Paris RER B, as an example (see earlier post) -- it has an airport spur and every other train goes up the spur.

It would likely use conventional EMUs. Probably a 6-coach EMU for 15-minute offpeak. You could double-berth them during peak. Union Station is a massive bottleneck but let's remember that the Union loiter-space is going to go about 6x as much (3x GO concourse space + the new basement mall). The USRC resignalling will permit increase of trainset count into Union. But as everybody said, one of the bottleneck will be platform stairs and platform capacity, though the considerations for one 10-coach train versus two 5-coach trains would be roughly similar. The double-berth concept is mentioned as one of the many options in some of the Metrolinx documents, including Metrolinx 2031 (albiet using berths west of York when double-berthing longer trains).

There is Metrolinx advertising that hints of a bilevel EMU. The pictogram, which is clip art and only a concept -- however, is a Stadler KISS, a bilevel EMU available in 6-coach amd shorter. This may not be the ultimate decision, but one of the many 5-coach or 6-coach EMUs (modified with higher-density GO coach seating, rather than first class / second class configuration, to be similar to a 6-coach BomBardier BiLevel) seems to make the most sense for a long-term EMU fleet transition for the GO network.

One big question is whether we'll stick to low platforms, or raise to high platforms. This is also posted in my Great Platform Height Debate thread. The opportunity exists because UPX brought high platforms AND also SmartTrack requires infill stations. The infill stations can be high-platform only. And this route is the obvious first route for EMUs. Thusly, high platforms cannot be completely ruled out for this one specific route (RER Bramalea-Stoufville with an airport spur).

Possible High Platform Train transition opportunity exists because:
-- UPX brought some high platforms to the GO network.
-- Infill stations could theoretically be high-platform only
-- Choices of electric EMUs are bigger if you also include high platform options
-- Future high speed trains will be high platform (see Ontario high speed train study)

Fate of 10-coach trains on Bramalea-to-Union during transition period to high platforms:
-- After transition, 10-coach trains would cease to stop at Bloor/Weston (10-coaches will go express to Bramalea, for Kitchener all-day service, could be lengthened to 12-coach)
-- After transition, Bramalea-to-Union would serve only 5-or-6-coach high-floor EMUs
-- UPX Union could relocate to another platform eventually. It could run a shortened 3-or-4-coach version of the same RER EMU, or it could utilize a narrow platform extension eastwards into Union

Possible unified high-floor EMU trainset scenario for RER and UPX fleet
-- Lengthening UPX platforms at Bloor/Weston to 4, 5, or 6 coaches.
-- 10-coach trains at Bloor/Weston would only open fewer coaches, during the transition period (before going express when EMU service begins).
(Not enough room for simultaneous 10-coach low platform and 5-coach/6-coach high platform)
-- Extra track installed in Georgetown corridor to serve opposite side of UPX platform, to make transition period easier.
-- Fate of Union UPX station in theoretical unified RER EMU fleet scenario:
......(a) Initially using fewer coaches for trains that stop at Union UPX (up to 4 coach)
......(b) Relocation to regular Union platform
......(c) Or lengthening UPX platform with a narrow raised TTC-style platform eastwards down Track 3.
-- Fate of Pearson UPX station in theoretical unified RER EMU fleet scenario: Unknown, but best-case scenario is that the RER EMU chosen has a bend radius capable of going on UPX spur. Longer RER EMUs could only open the frontmost 3 coaches at the Pearson UPX station. It would be the same 3 coaches that open at the more spacious portion of the Union UPX platform, so airport travellers knows which coaches to board.

If you could pull off a unified EMU fleet scenario for RER+UPX+ST, you could run almost identically to Paris RER B as pictured.

Metrolinx/GO would save a lot of money in this EMU unified fleet scenario. Union capacity is a problem, but assuming enough funds were spent to allow enough USRC corridor throughput of individual trainsets, preloading Union (right before peak) full of double-berthed 6-coach trains serving opposite directions. Offpeak when the service frequency was lower, and you don't have to worry about conflicts between incoming/outgoing trains, you can run several routes as through service (e.g. Bramalea-Stoufville). Today, Lakeshore runs this way (LSE-LSW runs through service mainly offpeak) and the same could concievably happen to the route that got the SmartTrack brand.

 

[drum118]

Tram-trains to replace UPX? Like trains similar to LRTs using the GO network?

They'll need to be high performing to keep the same timetables. Most tram-trains can't run 140kph, which Both the UPX and BiLevels are capable of reaching. Regularly, Lakeshore West expresses briefly hit 140-145kph -- the whole diesel 12 coach. Tram trains are unable to support this performance so it will could be a light EMU lighter than the BiLevels but heavier than LRVs. There are some routes where tram-trains could make sense but I'm not 100% sure that the GO network could go that light. Even the non-FRA lightweight EMUs have much bigger structural strength than Flexity Freedoms, and it is possible that Transport Canada may have some kind of a "lite" structural rule, like reinforced shock absorbing bumper pads added to the front/rear of even lighter trains. Admittedly, there are some tram-train LRT vehicles in Europe that goes onto heavy rail corridors and then back onto streets, all with lovely seats, more comfortable than the GO trains, albiet not as comfortable as UPX.

For the transition to EMUs, I am open to ideas, but I have a slightly different vision utilized a unified UPX+RER+ST fleet, as follows:

I see hints of RER Bramalea-Stoufville possibly being destined to eventually (through a series of obvious decisions) gradually merge RER/ST/UPX. Basically a RER with SmartTrack and UPX elements. You just have to look at Paris RER B, as an example (see earlier post) -- it has an airport spur and every other train goes up the spur.

It would likely use conventional EMUs. Probably a 6-coach EMU for 15-minute offpeak. You could double-berth them during peak. Union Station is a massive bottleneck but let's remember that the Union loiter-space is going to go about 6x as much (3x GO concourse space + the new basement mall). The USRC resignalling will permit increase of trainset count into Union. But as everybody said, one of the bottleneck will be platform stairs and platform capacity, though the considerations for one 12-coach train versus two 6-coach trains would be roughly similar. The double-berth concept is mentioned as one of the many options in some of the Metrolinx documents, including Metrolinx 2031 (albiet using berths west of York when double-berthing longer trains).

There is Metrolinx advertising that hints of a bilevel EMU. The pictogram, which is clip art and only a concept -- however, is a Stadler KISS, a bilevel EMU available in 6-coach amd shorter. This may not be the ultimate decision, but one of the many 6-coach EMUs (modified with higher-density GO coach seating, rather than first class / second class configuration, to be similar to a 6-coach BomBardier BiLevel) seems to make the most sense for a long-term EMU fleet transition for the GO network.

One big question is whether we'll stick to low platforms, or raise to high platforms. This is also posted in my Great Platform Height Debate thread. The opportunity exists because UPX brought high platforms AND also SmartTrack requires infill stations. The infill stations can be high-platform only. And this route is the obvious first route for EMUs. Thusly, high platforms cannot be completely ruled out for this one specific route (RER Bramalea-Stoufville with an airport spur).

Possible High Platform Train transition opportunity exists because:
-- UPX brought some high platforms to the GO network.
-- Infill stations could theoretically be high-platform only
-- Choices of electric EMUs are bigger if you also include high platform options
-- Future high speed trains will be high platform (see Ontario high speed train study)

Fate of 12-coach trains on Bramalea-to-Union during transition period to high platforms:
-- After transition, 12-coach trains would cease to stop at Bloor/Weston (12-coaches will go express to Bramalea, for Kitchener all-day service)
-- After transition, Bramalea-to-Union would serve only 6-coach high-floor EMUs
-- UPX Union could relocate to another platform eventually. It could run a shortened 3-or-4-coach version of the same RER EMU, or it could utilize a narrow platform extension eastwards into Union

Possible unified high-floor EMU trainset scenario for RER and UPX fleet
-- Lengthening UPX platforms at Bloor/Weston to 6 coaches.
-- 12-coach trains at Bloor/Weston would only open 9 coaches, during the transition period (before going express when EMU service begins).
(Not enough room for simultaneous 12-coach low platform and 6-coach high platform)
-- Fate of Union UPX station in theoretical unified RER EMU fleet scenario:
......(a) Initially using fewer coaches for trains that stop at Union UPX (up to 4 coach)
......(b) Relocation to regular Union platform
......(c) Or lengthening UPX platform with a narrow raised TTC-style platform eastwards down Track 3.
-- Fate of Pearson UPX station in theoretical unified RER EMU fleet scenario: Unknown, but best-case scenario is that the RER EMU chosen has a bend radius capable of going on UPX spur. Longer RER EMUs could only open the frontmost 3 coaches at the Pearson UPX station. It would be the same 3 coaches that open at the more spacious portion of the Union UPX platform, so airport travellers knows which coaches to board.

If you could pull off a unified EMU fleet scenario for RER+UPX+ST, you could run almost identically to Paris RER B as pictured.

Metrolinx/GO would save a lot of money in this EMU unified fleet scenario. Union capacity is a problem, but assuming enough funds were spent to allow enough USRC corridor throughput of individual trainsets, preloading Union (right before peak) full of double-berthed 6-coach trains serving opposite directions. Offpeak when the service frequency was lower, and you don't have to worry about conflicts between incoming/outgoing trains, you can run several routes as through service (e.g. Bramalea-Stoufville). Today, Lakeshore runs this way (LSE-LSW runs through service mainly offpeak) and the same could concievably happen to the route that got the SmartTrack brand.

First of all, have you looked at Bloor & Weston stations to see if you can go high platform for 6 cars as well what is involved doing it??? Tell us how to do it.

You know you can get KISS DD cars that are lowfloor for EMUs and all new EMUs should be lowfloor 100%.

Not all RER trains needs to be 12 cars and only 5 cars long at best.

You know it only requires 5 minutes to make up or down a train set made up of 2 5 car set or more using EMUs.

You know that moving UPX to another platform location requires rebuilding that platform at great cost as well been out of service for months. What does it do to other lines having UPX taking over an existing platform???

Using UPX as part of a ST/RER using the Stoufville line with more infill stations should happen.

 

[mdrejhon]

In specific messages did suggest a long-term transition period (including 30 year options). It could be incremental (e.g. 4 coach RER EMU at the UPX station) that slowly migrates to longer trains during the high speed train era.

Regarding Bloor/Weston, I noticed at least one high platform next to a low platform, so they can "cannibalize" into each other, and use the "keep certain coaches closed" technique. But if this is not possible at all tracks at all platforms -- then yes you're right. Many compromises would need to be made. Worse comes to worse, you'd cannibalize low stations (open only 6 or 7 coaches of bilevels, while building the high platforms for 5 or 6 coaches) for the sections where UPX station could not be extended.

If this is not doable by RER Phase I and GO chose at least one high-floor EMU for the UPX replacement (are we going to discontinue UPX Union/Pearson otherwise?), you end up with an even-more-mixed-EMU fleet, but a migration path of some kind (with some, even if not all, of the elements suggested) might be needed for RER Phase II to gradually unify the fleet. During the transition period, you could run many trains as 3-coach, 4-coach, 5-coach, 6-coach and at the "difficult" stations, only open 3-coach, 4-coach, until a RER Phase II occurs and by then the UPX stations are probably 15 years and people have long forgotten.

Either way, it looks like tough decisions will be need to be made (electrify UPX or not? Is electrified UPX high platform? Do we use hybrid high/low platform trains? Discontinue UPX stations when merging into RER? What can be done with the current $13.5bn RERification, or needs to be bumped to RER Phase II as an incremental step? Build infill stations to serve high or low platforms? What is politically feasible? Even the strange ideas might be looked at: Do we convert the UPX station to low-platform for RER trainset compatibility? Will we get more blowback if we modify the station this way or that way? Are people still demanding a subway experience on the GO network with better accessibility, including all-door high-floor boarding? Never electrify UPX? Retrofit the UPX trainsets which needs to become enlarged/transit friendly or risk 2018 election fallout? Retrofit the UPX trainsets for now, but eventually migrate to EMU trainset unification? Are we going be making UPX incompatible with RER? Are we designing infill stations with both high and low platforms? Replace the UPX trainsets with RER trains? Etc. Etc.)

Balancing all of these considerations is why I think high-platform EMU decisions need to be carefully thought-out.

All the above is a rock and a hard place: "What does electrified UPX (or its replacement) look like?" In 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? One that's acceptable to the population, and also politically acceptable, with a migration path that's less of a rock-and-hard-place.

You know it only requires 5 minutes to make up or down a train set made up of 2 5 car set or more using EMUs.

If Metrolinx can join/detach trains for longer trainsets during peak, that would be great!
My understanding is that this has not been done because it takes too much time, but I realize many new EMUs have quick attach-detach couplings designed for daily couplings. That would help solve a USRC trainset throughput issue during peak, while running shorter trains offpeak.

So if that is operationally done, then some trains could double-berth, and some trains could be coupled, depending on needs. I'm not sure a unified RER-UPX needs to become 10-coach during peak. Unless they plan to decouple at Woodbine RER station (THAT would be interesting) and send half of the train down the Pearson spur... But staffing and dwell-length could be issues.

You know that moving UPX to another platform location requires rebuilding that platform at great cost as well been out of service for months. What does it do to other lines having UPX taking over an existing platform???

Using UPX as part of a ST/RER using the Stoufville line with more infill stations should happen.

All good questions that needs answers depending on what EMU transition path Metrolinx ultimately decides (including options that keep or discontinue high platforms).

Transition path needs to be considered -- if we design RER with two distinct trainsets (high and low) we will shoot ourselves in our feet in 20-30 years.

In 20 or 30 years for urban RER/ST/UPX stations:
--> will we still be using the high-platform stations
--> or will we still be using low-platform stations
--> or will we still be using both? Same or different proportion (adjusted lengths)?
--> and for existing and/or infill stations?

Important long-term migration path questions, given the possible increase of high-platform services (the VIA, the future UPX-specific EMU, and the HSR). How are we going to handle this transition, given we designed a quagmire into our GO system, of both heights, that we need to solve? How do we make lemonade out of lemons, here?

The EMU sets we buy will force our migration path. We're stuck with both high and low platforms, how do we manage both? We must spend more -- given UPX infrastructure needs to be rolled in, it results in my opinion is we might as well spend on high platforms. Even if we initially begin by electrifying the existing DMU trainset as cheaply as possible, we may still need a migration path of merging UPX into RER (as a separate future step), and that also forces the question of high versus low.

Yes, Inactive sides of platforms would need to be tracked through, to permit a transition period. At Bloor, only one side of the UPX station is used -- the RailPath side is not in use at this time. This could permit a transition path, beginning with a 3-coach EMU that's lengthenable. So add that final track, and engineer a long-term transition path regardless of keeping or disposing of the UPX stations.

Metrolinx/GO has very tough decisions coming, with the sudden signalled intent of UPX merger into RER (already started organizationally & fare-wise), and this just made their EMU trainset decision more complicated.

Let's not design a second quagmire when we transition to electrified GO RER

 

[TOareaFan]

Fate of 12-coach trains on Bramalea-to-Union during transition period to high platforms:
-- After transition, 12-coach trains would cease to stop at Bloor/Weston (12-coaches will go express to Bramalea, for Kitchener all-day service)

12 coach trains already do not stop at Bloor/Weston....primarily because 12 coach trains do not serve the line. 10 coach trains are used on KW line.

 

[mdrejhon]

12 coach trains already do not stop at Bloor/Weston....primarily because 12 coach trains do not serve the line. 10 coach trains are used on KW line.

Oh yes, thanks for that clarification.
Whenever I said "12-coach", I meant "10-coach". I am WAY too used to Lakeshore.

I have ridden this Kingston line, but not daily (like Lakeshore) to automatically remember it's not 12-coach, apologies -- I have seen 3-coach high platforms adjacent to a longer low platform, so I assume the cannibalization option exists for certain tracks. Perhaps not all tracks and there would be a nightmare. There is the talk of lengthening to 12-coach trains, but you can keep that option only to expresses to Bramalea or Brampton (And beyond) for a theoretical Kitchener all-day 2-way service. So, assuming logistical issues are solved (e.g. opening the opposite side with an extra track near RailPath, etc) to allow construction detour berth. Yes, another construction nightmare (hopefully smaller scale than Georgetown Corridor Megaproject for the Bloor/Weston stations), but consider the pick-your-poison options we're now being forced with.

Made edits to my original post where applicable.

Regardless, the same principles still applies to the "What does electrified UPX (or its replacement) look like?" conundrum given the engineering/political/transit/future migration path compromises.