First, I agree completely with your comments that the public has lots of wants, but when you get down to trading them off, you have to be very mindful of the fact that some of those are contradictory and we can't satisfy all of them.
By the way, I would not recommend nor would the public, because we've asked them this many times. The public has spoken on this and they'd really like to go ahead and do it. They would only like their voice to be heard as one partial input to this. They recognize there are lots of other considerations, competing interests, technical issues. They don't pretend to have that expertise. They're just saying as they understand this, they think it's a really good idea. Compared to a lot of other ideas, they think this is a particularly good one.
In terms of the question of trade-offs, we have tested trade-offs many times, explicitly saying they can pick this or that, looking at all kinds of random combinations. We haven't done that with this particular exercise. I think from past experience it would do quite well. It would certainly figure in the top half, but it would be something I would like to do.
I appreciate your sensitivity to the fact—