I might not have been heard correctly. What I was referencing was that based on earlier comments that there would have been a third corridor in the densely populated southern Ontario, it's conceivable there would need to be a third corridor for a higher-speed rail system. In between Calgary and Edmonton, the land space wouldn't turn around and you would definitely have to have another corridor outside of the existing railway corridor. And that's entirely feasible.
Where the controversy and conversation would come from would be simply on the fact of having a high-speed rail system that's going to be connecting at the ground, basically because of the infrastructure that is already in place, not only on primary roads but on secondary roads and third-level roads. A tremendous amount of interface would have to be recognized and properly be identified just from a simple safety point of view, and the local population would be very concerned about that particular system being put in place.
There is no shortage of people who would use a system, but whether or not it is a conventional grounded system is what the conversation would be about. There are other systems that can move people that would make more efficient use of a corridor than a higher-speed railway that would minimize to the maximum any interfacing with the existing infrastructure.
Mr. Gilbert was mentioning the cost side of developing that corridor being on the low side. Traditionally in Alberta, the cost of road development and any rail development is a lot cheaper than it is in other parts of the country. Even though I understand his need for having a benchmark on the cost point of view, I would probably want to defend the cost per kilometre on what they used for Calgary to Edmonton. This is because, even though I'm not in favour of a grounded system, our general construction costs per kilometre are less than what they are in other areas of the country.