I'll be very brief.
It was very striking in Washington State to see that both in the United States and in Canada we really have had a 40-year gap in commitment to passenger rail, so the idea that we would now leap over all those stages and go straight to high-speed rail has struck some people here as a bit utopian. I think high-speed rail should be the goal, but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and lose the opportunity to recommit at much lower levels of cost, as Mr. Gilbert has said, and with the tremendous benefits of higher-speed rail or better rail. There's a whole host of policy issues that the Americans are going to have to wrestle with--and we will too, because we're so interlocked--concerning computerizing the train management system so we can move more freight and people on the same track, and so forth. I think these are going to be things we have to do, just the way we invest in lots of other economic infrastructure. Subsidies may be necessary, but the benefits will outweigh them.