Yes, but what it still boils down to is that every project has to be looked at and determinations have to be made as to the operational money or the infrastructure side of it.
But it all has to be decided based on the priorities of the various areas and what will serve them the best. That's sort of what I understand from what you said. Looking at Canada as an example, certainly for you, when you talk about the plan for the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, obviously I would be interested in your thoughts on that, but I can't imagine that you would suggest that this model might work in a more rural part of the country, for example.
As an example, in my riding I have one community of about 43,000 people. Some do commute to Calgary and there is some transit, which was set up by the community to get people into Calgary and back for their work. There's also a private sector company that provides for that community.
Outside of that area, I have another population of about 90,000 to 100,000, spread out over 27 different communities. Obviously if you do the math on that, you're averaging about 3,000 to 4,000 people per community. It's mostly a rural area, with farms and oil and gas, so obviously a public transit type of solution probably is not something you're going to see in that type of area.
You have a model that's working very well, from the sound of it, for the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, but would you suggest that this necessarily would be something that would be duplicated all over the country?