My question is for Mr. Brockmeyer.
I listened to your remarks. I appreciate them.
There's a bit of a debate in our country—you might have seen it as you prepared your remarks—between high-frequency rail and high-speed rail.
You spoke of high-speed rail and the need for a flat terrain, etc. Do you have any comments specifically about high-frequency rail—which is on dedicated tracks but perhaps doesn't have the top-end speed of high-speed rail—versus a purely high-speed rail system? Are there examples in Europe of where that has worked well? Do you have an opinion on the value of one versus the other in terms of ridership?
You said this can be done at a “very reasonable price” if the terrain is right. We're talking about billions of dollars here. We have heard that it's perhaps double to go from high-frequency rail to high-speed rail. If you can, I'd like you to address the difference between the two and what the very reasonable price is.
Can both be built for a very reasonable price in your view, and what does that actually constitute?