VIA Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We're talking about the same conservatives that want to scrap the CIB and pledged to do so last election. The NDP also promised to scrap the CIB last election. Also the CIB is a Crown Corp supposed to be endowed with $120+ billion in capital over the next 15 years. So those are mostly taxpayer dollars, unless VIA can pull in private investors.

Without private capital, the CIB is just borrowing money on the Crown’s behalf, which the bureaucracy could do without getting the Bay Street wages and Bay Street overhead of the CIB, it certainly makes no sense to keep it.

An institution like the CIB makes no sense in a country where the state can borrow cheap.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Without private capital, the CIB is just borrowing money on the Crown’s behalf, which the bureaucracy could do without getting the Bay Street wages and Bay Street overhead of the CIB, it certainly makes no sense to keep it.

An institution like the CIB makes no sense in a country where the state can borrow cheap.

Institutional investors do invest in infrastructure all over the world with various P3 models. So there is certainly space for such an institution. Whether they can function as effectively in Canada and draw in private sector capital, is a different question. I think it's still really early to tell. Unfortunately, politics might not afford them a realistic timeline to be judged.

Keep in mind that Canada has lagged the OECD on infrastructure spending for decades now. There's no evidence that governments in this country are actually willing to spend what is necessary, despite the low interest rates. If the CIB fails, that's probably it for infrastructure investment for another generation. The low interest rate environment does offer some opportunities though. Institutional capital will be looking for better yielding alternatives. Even 1% more on a government backed rail project can be useful.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Institutional investors do invest in infrastructure all over the world with various P3 models. So there is certainly space for such an institution. Whether they can function as effectively in Canada and draw in private sector capital, is a different question. I think it's still really early to tell. Unfortunately, politics might not afford them a realistic timeline to be judged.

Keep in mind that Canada has lagged the OECD on infrastructure spending for decades now. There's no evidence that governments in this country are actually willing to spend what is necessary, despite the low interest rates. If the CIB fails, that's probably it for infrastructure investment for another generation. The low interest rate environment does offer some opportunities though. Institutional capital will be looking for better yielding alternatives. Even 1% more on a government backed rail project can be useful.

I certainly agree that lagging infrastructure spending is a problem, but countries that out spend us are not doing so because they have an infrastructure bank and we don’t. In fact most OECD countries have no such institution.

I am not clear on why institutional investors need the CIB to organize a P3 project. They all have large infrastructure divisions with significant expertise undertaking P3 infrastructure projects around the world.

Maybe if it was set up as some sort of arms length institution in order to depoliticize infrastructure spending (the way the Bank of Canada is supposed to depoliticize monetary policy) then it might have merit, but the Liberals clearly do not see it that way.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I certainly agree that lagging infrastructure spending is a problem, but countries that out spend us are not doing so because they have an infrastructure bank and we don’t. In fact most OECD countries have no such institution.

Correct. They just spend more. But a lot of why they spend more involves the mobilization of non-public capital. Take a look at how many highways are rolled in Europe for example. Or the separation of the rail network and train operators. Etc. Or the transformation of rail operators into developers, as we see in Asia. We don't have a history of this. A lot of our infrastructure in Canada is exclusively publicly funded. And it would take decades to inculcate that experience of mixed funding. There is a role for another institution here. Also, while not called infrastructure banks, there are quite a few countries where there are favoured public or private corporations that fill the same role. Think of Temasek in Singapore for example.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am not clear on why institutional investors need the CIB to organize a P3 project. They all have large infrastructure divisions with significant expertise undertaking P3 infrastructure projects around the world.

I've now seen several interviews and read articles with execs at the CIB. And as I understand it, they are sticking to the kinds of projects that governments would normally have a tough time closing. And that the private sector might need reassurances on to get involved. Think of HFR, Pearson's transit hub project, cross-country HVDC lines, etc.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Maybe if it was set up as some sort of arms length institution in order to depoliticize infrastructure spending (the way the Bank of Canada is supposed to depoliticize monetary policy) then it might have merit, but the Liberals clearly do not see it that way.

The more I read about them, the more it is clear that they are trying to do that. But that kind of independence can't be shown in just one term. It takes time to find their role and rhythm and to get to funding projects that show this.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Boston-Halifax if it were to exist, should be a high speed ferry. Not a train.

Swimmer_spe thinks it's the 1960s when flying was expensive for most people, crossing land borders was easy, freeway networks weren't as developed, governments had loads of capital and most families didn't have multiple cars. I support him dumping all these proposals on his local MP, so that we can spend more time discussing realistic ideas.

1) Anything cross-border is out. The border is getting thicker. A far better idea is transfer stations to facilitate an easy transfer to an Amtrak service.

2) A strict focus on corridors with the highest rates of return. Quebec-Windsor. And probably Calgary-Edmonton. Regional routes? Except for the Canadian and the Ocean, if the provinces aren't willing to subsidize them, they should be fair game for termination.

3) Work with the freight cos to create a minimum infrastructure plan to boost speed and reliability of the Canadian and the Ocean. And boost frequencies. Canadian should be daily. Ocean should be double daily at least.

4) Start up connecting shuttle services that connect to Corridor, Canadian and Ocean services. Buses and even vans where warranted.

5) Maximum emphasis on interconnectivity. Aviation at Pearson and Trudeau. Ferries where possible.

VIA needs to think more like a national passenger transportation service and less like a regional rail operating conglomerate. I should be able to fly in to Toronto and book a combined train and shuttle ticket that gets me to Charlottetown, PEI with stops en route. If they have to cut far-flung regional routes that 90% of Canadians don't even know exist, so be it.

HFR is evidence that they are starting to think like this. I hope it continues.

1) Agreed. That is why the Montreal-Saint John line is so low on things I would like to see come back.

2) AFAIK Ontario and Quebec do not contribute to Via's operating budget.
Yes, focusing on city pairs is important, but ignoring the rest of the country is bad.

3) This I agree 100% with. Each should be a daily and be predictable. The Via trains should be treated like over siding trains.

4) Absolutely. All stations on those lines should have Via bus service.Ironically, we are talking about something that was that we decided to give to the private sector for them to profit off the subsidy only to cut the service.

5) Agreed. Sadly, the country would rather ignore it and just sit in the car.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Correct. They just spend more. But a lot of why they spend more involves the mobilization of non-public capital. Take a look at how many highways are rolled in Europe for example. Or the separation of the rail network and train operators. Etc. Or the transformation of rail operators into developers, as we see in Asia. We don't have a history of this. A lot of our infrastructure in Canada is exclusively publicly funded. And it would take decades to inculcate that experience of mixed funding. There is a role for another institution here. Also, while not called infrastructure banks, there are quite a few countries where there are favoured public or private corporations that fill the same role. Think of Temasek in Singapore for example.

Yes, but I don't think the impediment to these things is private sector capacity. The private sector in Canada is perfectly capable of financing, building, operating a toll road or taking over the concession on an existing highway or airport (at least in the Before Time, nobody will touch an airport concession now). The impediment is politics and legal framework, not private sector capacity.

CIB is not a sovereign wealth fund, its only access to capital is what it can get from the federal government. The closest thing Canada has to a sovereign wealth fund, the CPPIB is mostly forbidden by law to have objectives other than maximizing return.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I've now seen several interviews and read articles with execs at the CIB. And as I understand it, they are sticking to the kinds of projects that governments would normally have a tough time closing. And that the private sector might need reassurances on to get involved. Think of HFR, Pearson's transit hub project, cross-country HVDC lines, etc.

The things you have listed are pretty traditional infrastructure projects. The federal government could fund any of them without the CIB.

To be fair, we don't know much about that they're doing. In five years they have only made one investment so far, $1.28B to REM in Montreal, which could have just as easily done through usual federal infrastructure channels. They also claim in their most recent annual report to have 13 projects in "active due diligence."

Private sector reassurances (i.e. loan guarantees or guaranteed revenue) do not require the CIB (I don't think CIB can actually do either, just recommend loan guarantees to the Finance Ministry).

If anything, I think CIB is probably slowing down infrastructure. If the feds had just created a $35 billion infrastructure program a good chunk of the money would probably be committed by now and there would probably be shovels in the ground on numerous projects.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The more I read about them, the more it is clear that they are trying to do that. But that kind of independence can't be shown in just one term. It takes time to find their role and rhythm and to get to funding projects that show this.

If they wanted it to be seen as an independent institution they neglected to get any political cover (such as a recommendation from a Commission or a bipartisan parliamentary committee), neglected to give it any real independence (almost everything it does has to be approved by Treasury Board and/or a Minister). That, combined with the lack of known results after 5 years will make it pretty easy for a future government to kill.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes, but I don't think the impediment to these things is private sector capacity. The private sector in Canada is perfectly capable of financing, building, operating a toll road or taking over the concession on an existing highway or airport (at least in the Before Time, nobody will touch an airport concession now). The impediment is politics and legal framework, not private sector capacity.

Yes, there are private sector entities that are capable of doing the big projects in Canada. But they're the ones saying there aren't enough opportunities and they were likely the ones who pushed the CIB.

Originally Posted by acottawa

CIB is not a sovereign wealth fund, its only access to capital is what it can get from the federal government. The closest thing Canada has to a sovereign wealth fund, the CPPIB is mostly forbidden by law to have objectives other than maximizing return.

Never said the CIB was an SWF. Just said there's all kinds of funds out there that do the development function. It's not always some government ministry. Singapore, for example, has no oil. Why do they have an SWF? Because Temasek is effectively a holding company for all of the government's business and infrastructure investments.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The things you have listed are pretty traditional infrastructure projects. The federal government could fund any of them without the CIB.

They could. But they won't. This very thread is proof. We've been discussing better intercity rail in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor for nearly half a century now. Imagine some staid public servant even considering an idea like this:

https://financialpost.com/technology...bell-and-telus

For some strange reason, absent some kind of rebranding and repackaging, governments in this country aren't willing to do what is necessary. And the bigger the idea, the bigger the cowardice and abdication of responsibility.

Originally Posted by acottawa

If they wanted it to be seen as an independent institution they neglected to get any political cover (such as a recommendation from a Commission or a bipartisan parliamentary committee), neglected to give it any real independence (almost everything it does has to be approved by Treasury Board and/or a Minister). That, combined with the lack of known results after 5 years will make it pretty easy for a future government to kill.

Any government that kills the CIB, is probably also killing infrastructure funding substantially. So unfortunately, it'll be a package deal.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

1) Anything cross-border is out. The border is getting thicker. A far better idea is transfer stations to facilitate an easy transfer to an Amtrak service.

Agreed. Amtrak's Cascades will be the model for all international trains (one stop on the opposite side of the boarder and clear customs there). I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak's Maple Leaf will be split one day.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

2) A strict focus on corridors with the highest rates of return. Quebec-Windsor. And probably Calgary-Edmonton. Regional routes? Except for the Canadian and the Ocean, if the provinces aren't willing to subsidize them, they should be fair game for termination.

As I said before, the regional routes are mostly there to serve First Nation communities. Those are a federal, not provincial, responsibility.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

3) Work with the freight cos to create a minimum infrastructure plan to boost speed and reliability of the Canadian and the Ocean. And boost frequencies. Canadian should be daily. Ocean should be double daily at least.

I agree we need to find a better solution. I just don't think it is as simple as it sounds. Given that The Canadian is mostly a tourist train, doubling frequency won't double ridership as tourists are more accommodating to reduced schedules than those using it as a form of transportation.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

4) Start up connecting shuttle services that connect to Corridor, Canadian and Ocean services. Buses and even vans where warranted.

It is already being done in the maritime provinces. Until we can fix The Canadian's reliability, there is no point trying to arrange connecting bus services. I do agree that more should be done in the corridor.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

5) Maximum emphasis on interconnectivity. Aviation at Pearson and Trudeau. Ferries where possible.

I agree, but that takes money for infrastructure. VIA has troubles getting enough money to cover their operating expenses.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

1) Agreed. That is why the Montreal-Saint John line is so low on things I would like to see come back.

Yet your priority list includes, "4) Toronto-Chicago" and "5) Halifax-Boston" with "Winnipeg-St Paul" also mentioned?

Originally Posted by acottawa

If anything, I think CIB is probably slowing down infrastructure.

I tend to agree. I am not sure if this is because of teething pain or if it is just the way the CIB operates though.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes, there are private sector entities that are capable of doing the big projects in Canada. But they're the ones saying there aren't enough opportunities and they were likely the ones who pushed the CIB.




Never said the CIB was an SWF. Just said there's all kinds of funds out there that do the development function. It's not always some government ministry. Singapore, for example, has no oil. Why do they have an SWF? Because Temasek is effectively a holding company for all of the government's business and infrastructure investments.




They could. But they won't. This very thread is proof. We've been discussing better intercity rail in the Quebec-Windsor Corridor for nearly half a century now. Imagine some staid public servant even considering an idea like this:

https://financialpost.com/technology...bell-and-telus

For some strange reason, absent some kind of rebranding and repackaging, governments in this country aren't willing to do what is necessary. And the bigger the idea, the bigger the cowardice and abdication of responsibility.



Any government that kills the CIB, is probably also killing infrastructure funding substantially. So unfortunately, it'll be a package deal.

Singapore has a SWF because Singapore of the 70s and 80s prioritized savings, while Canadian governments ran up huge debt and then sold state owned assets at firesale prices.

The CIB has absolutely no authority to restructure the telecom industry, it’s basically acting as a think tank. That’s fine, but it isn’t an infrastructure solution.

CIB funding requires Treasury Board approval. Whatever political obstacle that would exist to a rail project using a traditional approach would still exist if the CIB goes to TB seeking funding (or Finance seeking loan guarantees).

And let’s remember that the CIB is a pretty small amount of money. $35B sounds like a lot, but it is amortized over 11 years. The Province of Ontario is planning to spend $144B on infrastructure over the same timeframe, for example.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I tend to agree. I am not sure if this is because of teething pain or if it is just the way the CIB operates though.

I would guess a combination. You can't just ramp up from zero to full fledged investment bank in a year or two. Getting the right experience mix in takes time. Especially at the level of investment they are talking about. The process itself is also going to add time. Doing full business cases and financial modeling takes time. But I'm not entirely sure a lot of these ideas would be automatically funded by the Feds or committed to without business cases (if the CIB didn't exist). The way I see it, they don't have enough manpower to do enough studies, fast enough to get money out the door.

Fundamentally, they exist to get us to pay more for our infrastructure. Let's be honest. Far too much of our infrastructure is heavily subsidized in this country. And then has upkeep underinvested in. The arms length nature of the bank (however debatable) allows them to push financial models with more user fees. To that end, I have read that one of the CIB's frustrations has been how many municipalities, utilities, etc are resistant to such models. But I can't see any way to actually accelerate infrastructure investment without such a change in mindset.

If I had to make a change, I'd say the mistake was giving them such a broad mandate. They should have been restricted to the large projects that institutional investors want to get into. CPPIB has said, for example, the sub billion dollar stuff is not worth their time. They should have also been restricted to stuff that truly has national or strategic implication in the beginning. REM, GO Transit expansion, Calgary-Banff Rail didn't really require them. They should have been restricted to airports, seaports, intercity rail, border connections, pipelines, powerlines and national communications lines.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The CIB has absolutely no authority to restructure the telecom industry, it’s basically acting as a think tank. That’s fine, but it isn’t an infrastructure solution.

CIB funding requires Treasury Board approval. Whatever political obstacle that would exist to a rail project using a traditional approach would still exist if the CIB goes to TB seeking funding (or Finance seeking loan guarantees).

I don't disagree with you that they should have been given far more independence. But then I can see the other argument that you have unaccountable public servants controlling a $35B fund.

Setting aside distaste for the bank (and I sense plenty of public servants simply feel threatened more than anything else), I don't see how exactly infrastructure investment can be boosted without something like the CIB. Simply because most infrastructure owners are wholly resistant to pricing the use of their infrastructure in an appropriate manner and freeing up capital for more investments. This country is full of ageing pipes, power lines, bridges and roads from neglectful authorities who refused to raise and spend the appropriate amount on upkeep and recapitalization. The CIB is a tool to force such behaviour.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't disagree with you that they should have been given far more independence. But then I can see the other argument that you have unaccountable public servants controlling a $35B fund.

Setting aside distaste for the bank (and I sense plenty of public servants simply feel threatened more than anything else), I don't see how exactly infrastructure investment can be boosted without something like the CIB. Simply because most infrastructure owners are wholly resistant to pricing the use of their infrastructure in an appropriate manner and freeing up capital for more investments. This country is full of ageing pipes, power lines, bridges and roads from neglectful authorities who refused to raise and spend the appropriate amount on upkeep and recapitalization. The CIB is a tool to force such behaviour.

I guess we will see if some projects ever get announced, but I don’t see it as an effective way to bypass political obstacles. Toll highways are politically unpopular. Paying more for utilities is politically unpopular. Charging more for transit is politically unpopular. Provinces, municipalities and the feds are unlikely to make politically unpopular decisions for the sake of the relatively small amounts the CIB will bring to the table.

I think the easiest way to boost infrastructure spending is to regularized it. Give federal agencies like Parks Canada, Via Rail, the NCC a proper capital budget. Give an infrastructure transfer to the provinces to support things like the Trans Canada Highway. Too often infrastructure is treated like a one off rather than a regular part of spending.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

More like the UCP bought some publicity that makes them look forward thinking (their target market is Albertans after all....) while doing absolutely nothing to rail improve intercity rail.

Even if the tech worked, common sense tells you that putting your Maglev train in a vacuum tube is not going to be cheap.

But why buy that publicity? It's like trying to sell heavy-duty pickup trucks to the Prius crowd.

Let's picture two conversations:

First one:

Huckster: I can sell you a 1000 km/h dream train between Edmonton and Calgary!

Actually Conservative Party: What a neat idea. *drops proposal in shredder*

Second one:

Huckster: I can sell you a 1000 km/h dream train between Edmonton and Calgary!

Un-Conservative Party: We'll take it, waste a bunch of bureaucratic dollars on what anybody with a pulse can recognize as a bad idea for a low-density jurisdiction. We'll ignore the fact that the idea is patently unfeasible and that governments in highly-dense areas of the world where HSR works (Japan, Asia, Europe) have rejected it. Then we'll put out a fancy press release that makes us look progressive to an audience that wouldn't vote for us even if we were anointed by the Almighty himself and no one will remember 45 seconds from now.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Based on the article, I'm not sure what makes you think the company received a pile of the province's money. Can you clarify?

The fact the province even acknowledged it was a waste of money, much less a self-styled fiscally conservative government.

[Truenorth00]

Governments do silly things all the time. Given that this doesn't cost the taxpayer much and gives them a talking point about Alberta being open to high tech, they probably see it as marketing.

[rbt]

This is on par with the Toronto Zoo Maglev (Magnivate) proposal. The government agreed they can use the land but any construction expense is on the company.

Alberta government agreed to pay for future demolition (and any contamination cleanup though that ought to be minimal) which I think is quite foolish; they should have required a deposit or insurance to cover that. Consider that the same deal was refused by the company due to the Alberta NDP requirement the private company demolish anything they build once they were done with it.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Having better connections to the USA is a good idea. The existing 3, prior to Covid were running at least daily.

Lets have a look at those three routes (west to east):

1. Amtrak Cascades

Arguably the most successful of the three. It connects:

Portland: 2.5 million,

Seattle:    4 million, and

Vancouver: 2.5 million

over a total distance of about 550 km (nicely within the sweet spot for rail). As a result, all three can feed off of each other (those travelling from Portland to Vancouver share the same train as those travelling from Portland to Seattle and those from Seattle to Vancouver. That means each train does triple service, making more frequent departures feasible. Frequent service along most of the corridor means investment in improved infrastructure justifiable.

It is also helpful that Vancouver is on the boarder, so customs and immigration (in both directions) can be done in the station, similar to flying.

2. The Maple Leaf

The only reason this route works is because it connects Canada's largest city (5.9 million) with USA's largest city (20.3 million). It also runs along the Empire Service corridor, which has frequent service, for most of the way. This justifies investment in improved infrastructure. Other than that, it is a roundabout route with a big delay in the middle at the boarder since there are multiple stops on both sides of the boarder, preventing people from clearing customs at a station.

As I said before, I believe it will be eventually split into 2 routes, with only one of them crossing the boarder. We might even see all Empire Service trains to Niagara Falls, NY continue to Niagara Falls, ON (with customs facilities there). The two stations are only about 700m from each other. Significant upgrades would be needed to add customs facilities, but I could see Niagara Parks Commission subsidizing this. It would then be left up to VIA (or GO Transit) to provide connecting service on to Toronto.

3. The Adirondack

This route connects Canada's second largest city (4.1 million) with USA's largest city (20.3 million). It does use a bit of the Empire Service corridor, but is mostly on track that it is the only passenger train on, so there is little incentive to upgrade the infrastructure (it could potentially share track with a Montreal-Boston train, which would help).

From what I gather (maybe someone can confirm), customs facilities have been built in Gare Central, but they haven't received approval for use. Once that happens, it would help.

The 4, 5, 6 all are between major cities and have intermediate communities with decent populations.

Lets look at those (in your order):

4) Toronto-Chicago

As I said before, Toronto-Detroit with connecting services on to Chicago makes sense, but the thickening of the boarder makes having through service impractical. Last year there was an interesting article in the Windsor Star titled, "Amtrak seeks federal help to restore Detroit to Toronto rail service." Not sure why it would be Amtrak and not VIA though.

5) Halifax-Boston

First of all, with only 317 thousand, I would not consider Halifax a major city. You also end up with the same issue of multiple stops in both countries, resulting in a long delay at the boarder. If anything, it would be St. John-Boston with connecting service on to Moncton (and maybe Halifax). I am not sure how feasible that would be though.

One of the things about visiting the Maritimes is it is a destination where you will want a car while you are there. You could rent one, but for a family vacation, you might as well drive then.

Winnipeg-St Paul (I assume this is your number 6?)

Similar to Halifax, with a population of 780 thousand, I still wouldn't call Winnipeg a major city, though it is closer. I am also curious what intermediate communities with decent populations are there? It looks to be mostly farmland to me. As a result, you will end up with a long, 747 km route with nothing in between. Any remote communities that once relied upon this train has long since found alternate modes of transportation.

The other thing to look at is, is there any synergy between the two cities (do a lot of people want to travel between the two cities?), or is it just a slow route to Chicago?

The Atlantic, although it may sound good, doesn't bring much to the ridership.

The one thing it could add is a shorter route. If it could be done as a daytime route (a big if) that would keep the costs down, as sleeper trains are expensive to operate. The difficult part is getting the travel time down, especially at the boarder. The answer may be that it isn't possible.

[Aylmer]

I think that Winnipeg-Minneapolis might actually have a constituency. When talking to my partner (who's from Winnipeg), it sounds like there's actually a good deal of travel to Minneapolis, mostly by road.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I think that Winnipeg-Minneapolis might actually have a constituency. When talking to my partner (who's from Winnipeg), it sounds like there's actually a good deal of travel to Minneapolis, mostly by road.

Interesting. What attracts them to Minneapolis? Vacation? Shopping? Business? How long would the go for (according to Google it is about a 7 hour drive)? How often would they go? Is the reverse true, do people from Minneapolis frequently visit Winnipeg?

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Interesting. What attracts them to Minneapolis? Vacation? Shopping? Business? How long would the go for (according to Google it is about a 7 hour drive)? How often would they go? Is the reverse true, do people from Minneapolis frequently visit Winnipeg?

I'm really not an expert, nor am I from the area. I hope that some of the Winnipeg forumers can chime in. From the sounds of it, it's mostly a long-weekend destination for shopping, entertainment, etc. I haven't heard of the reverse.

I figure that there must also be demand for intermediary trips, such as Grand Forks- or Fargo-Minneapolis.