There are a couple of questions there. One of the reasons it had so much of a tourist orientation was that you only had one train. You couldn't go back and forth on the same day by train. The other problem with the service is uncertainty because of their performance on time, which stands at 60%. It needs to be closer to 90%. So it's not a particularly reliable service.
Spending another $1 billion moves the time on service up to about 90% from 60%. The difference, if you move to two trains, is that you get four departure times. The legislators—the political leaders in Washington State—are of the view that there should be three trains to Vancouver. If you have three trains to Vancouver, that's six departure times. You start to get the ability to have business travellers. It isn't just a tourist event. Right now, it is primarily tourism, but there is the option and opportunity, certainly over the next 10 to 15 years, to build up that passenger rail volume. And it gets the cars off the road. I think that works effectively in Canada. I think we have the opportunity to put a Surrey stop in and to start to build it into our intercity rail, as well.
On the larger question of the cruise ships, part of the problem has been that we've been sort of closed-minded. If you can fly into Seattle and then catch a train to make it like a two-nation vacation, you can start to market the other way. The problem with that from a marketing point of view is the uncertainty at the border. If you can deal with the border issue, we could start to get back some of that traffic and make this a more.... Many people would much sooner come out of Vancouver, but we have both the cost issue and the crossing the border issue.
The toughening of the border, I would argue, is probably the biggest determinant that keeps people in the United States and grows the cruise ship business there rather than in Canada. I think we can deal with this border issue, because we have American political leaders who want to see this passenger train work.