Thanks for the question.
Again, for two corridors, it is my opinion that they have the potential for high-speed rail over 200 kilometres: Calgary-Edmonton and Ontario-Quebec. They can choose to go higher speed, which is what Cliff had mentioned with VIA Rail, going a little quicker on the same track as VIA, as the freight trains, but those are the two corridors. And on the Ontario-Quebec corridor, 17 studies said let's go, and we're waiting for number 18.
For Edmonton and Calgary, there are two options. You can go on the existing freight track with CP. Their proposal is there, with a Bombardier jet train and go up to 200 kilometres an hour. Or you go on a complete separate one, you go TGV, high-speed, up to 300 kilometres an hour. Our job, for High Speed Rail Canada, when I go into the community and I do education, is to provide people with the options. Here's what there is. We educate people. We show videos. We have questions and answers. We do not say here's the report from Calgary. We do not say you must go 300 kilometres an hour. We say here are the two options; please, let's move forward. They're viable. The studies say they're viable, and cost-benefit analysis, revenue.... You talked about, Mr. Volpe, what if we had done it in 1995; in 2005, it says here, there would have been $900 million in revenue this year.
So to answer your question, we don't say here's the route, but we educate people on the options. Personally, I am not a fan of having the passenger train high speed and the freight train on the same track, because I put personal safety number one. For high-speed trains there are no level crossings. There is no chance for an accident to happen, and that's what we need, especially in Canada, where we haven't seen high-speed rail. If we had level crossings with high-speed trains, it would be very dangerous, in my opinion. But again, that's not what I promote when I go out and do speeches. We give the options.
Thanks.