What are the takeaways from each scenario?

Scenario A: the creation of a footbridge to the east improves connections between modes of travel and provides better service to the new northern district.  However, the significant ascents and descents of the footbridge (>16 metres of cumulative difference in altitude) and the concentration of train access at the end of the platform make this path less attractive in favour of the existing one. A common entrance to the current underground and the future footbridge would be created for the southern access to the station.

The footbridge is not accessible to cyclists. The existing public underground is open to pedestrians and cyclists on foot.

Scenario B: the creation of a single-storey underground located in the centre of the platforms facilitates passenger routes and makes it possible to optimise connections (lines D and R located in the centre of the platforms), which makes it attractive. This crossing makes it possible to dedicate the current public underground to bicycles.

The work is more complex, but it will have a limited impact on rail traffic.

Scenario C: this "mixed" scenario offers an underground tunnel exclusively reserved for access to the platforms of lines D and R and a footbridge dedicated to pedestrians to the east. On the other hand, the multiplication of accesses to the hub, the creation of exclusive links that complicate pedestrian routes and the steep difference in height of the footbridge make this scenario less attractive.

The existing public underground would be open to pedestrians and cyclists on foot.