I would echo many of the comments of my competitors, my friendly competitors. I think there were a couple of questions.
On the cold temperature question, all three companies can deal with cold temperatures. We have our Helsinki-St. Petersburg project with the Pendolinos, which are tilting trains. We're meeting the challenge for the Russians. Siemens is doing the same thing and I'm sure Bombardier has that same capability.
In terms of going back to the fundamental question about what kind of investment it would take, I'm not really sure. I'm not sure what the mandate of the current study is and whether or not it's to look at a ridership coverage that would have to carry the capital costs.
Generally when I look at governments, capital costs in land and infrastructure are costed or carried on the books as assets, so it doesn't really make intuitive sense to me that you would say that these fixed asset costs are something we have to recover out of the project. I don't see them doing this in highways. I see highways as transportation infrastructure in the same sense that I say passenger rail is, so then you're looking at only the marginal cost, which is the vehicles, the electrification, and perhaps the stations.
On the stations, look at Union Station. How long has that lasted? It needs a facelift, by the way, but it's been around for a little while.
So for those costs, if you look at SNCF or Deutsche Bahn in Germany, they operate as profit-making entities and they reinvest their profits each year in expanding the rail network and upgrading it. I think that is the situation we could be in if we go forward with a high-speed rail line.