I mean... it's a rebuttal. See my comment below: we already put out a report saying we thought through running was the right approach, and now we're responding

I mean... it's a rebuttal. See my comment below: we already put out a report saying we thought through running was the right approach, and now we're responding to Amtrak's report on the topic. Even if there were passenger circulation issues problems (and our passenger model was half-written when we did the first report), there are other solutions like decking over tracks to join adjacent platforms into a wider platform. We're happy that do not appear necessary, but if it did it doesn't fatally imperil through running as being the best option. Finally, the number of outright errors and dubious claims in the Amtrak study makes us think they are doing their own reasoning. If you really don't believe my previous two paragraphs, just think ask yourself motivated reasoning seems less suspect! :) Through-running, unlike 10s billions for a station expansion, is a cheap experiment. We can just try it! If there are more passengers than expected (yay! Though) and safe circulation does become and issue, that's great new info and very little money wasted.