I have two comments on that.
First of all, your point is excellent. That's why we believe that the vision's important but the evaluation of the option is critical, right? An evaluation takes account of what the alternatives are and what we expect the alternatives to be for passengers. That is essential. We wouldn't for one moment suggest that we move away from that fact-based approach.
The second point, however, is that we need to consider how the playing field is currently set between the modes. This is also important when we look at the European experience and the European successes underlying high-speed rail.
For example, in France, people refer to it as the great success story, and indeed it is, but on the first line from Paris to Lyons, if you decide to travel that by motorway, you face considerable tolls. That's not the case here in Canada. It's not the case in the U.S. In the U.S., you may face heavy congestion from L.A. to San Diego, but you will not face tolls.
So the playing field is not quite the same as it is in Europe, and that is something that we do need to consider here in going forward. If we just look at Transport Canada's own results since the year 2000, they conducted a full cost investigation for every mode. For road, when you take into account gas taxes and all the other fees that are imposed on users, users pay about 40% of the cost of using that infrastructure. For air, they actually cover 100% of the cost, including that of environmental emissions.
So that's actually an important part of the puzzle when you look at the viability of high-speed rail. If we continue to have the current kind of playing field, it clearly is more difficult to have a viable option. That's the second point.