Political Support for Amtrak

[oltmannd]

You buy new revenue cars, get the on board crew off the train with the T&E guys and convert out of service Amfleet to baggage cars. Done!

[John WR]

Your point that Amtrak needs more REVENUE cars is well taken, Fred.  These are not the old days when trains had library cars and motion picture cars and similar things but the treatment of crew members has also changed.  Dining car workers do not pull the tables together and put mattresses on top of them to sleep on at night.  Amtrak treats its people a little better than the private railroads treated them.  

Of course in this world you get nothing for nothing.  Treating crew members as human beings costs something.  But we are not going to turn back.  

[dakotafred]

calzeph

Begging your pardon but the baggage dorm cars are neede to get crew members out of revenue space needed for revenue [assengers. Both straight baggage cars are neede to replace the present baggage cars which are very old and can't be used at speeds above, I believe, 90 miles an hour. The new ones are supposed to be operable at either 100 or 125 mph, I'm not sure which.

And that will be useful -- where? Most places, Amtrak is restricted to 79 mph, tops. We need more REVENUE cars, cars that help pay the bills, coaches and sleepers!

[calzeph]

Begging your pardon but the baggage dorm cars are neede to get crew members out of revenue space needed for revenue [assengers. Both straight baggage cars are neede to replace the present baggage cars which are very old and can't be used at speeds above, I believe, 90 miles an hour. The new ones are supposed to be operable at either 100 or 125 mph, I'm not sure which.

[V.Payne]

Hey, I'll take that. Just remember that most of the federal highway subsidy relative to user taxes goes to intercity roadways, so the denominator is much smaller than the total vehicle miles traveled. Also i believe accident costs are left out of that number and differential taxes, railroad vs road. What if you attempted to collect the difference in say 1950? Well usage would be a lot less, maybe no Amtrak to begin with.

You have to back analyze from a particular roadway segment to get a real answer, which is what I did in the paper for the interstates segments. I haven't found this type of analysis in the think tank papers, probably for a reason.

I have been thinking for a while of doing a license plate comparison on each end of the state, with a time delay for travel, on an interstate route to figure out how many travelers actually are doing over 200 mile trips. 

[Paul Milenkovic]

Yes, I took a look at USPIRG, quoting "

· Highways don’t pay for themselves -- Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called “user fees” by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways."

600 billion dollars over an over 50-year period of General Revenue supporting highways, roads, and streets.  Sure sounds like an awful lot of money, but how much in the way of trains does 600 billion get us?  Over a shorter period of time, since 1971, haven't we invested about 60 billion, give or take, in Amtrak?  To what yield in transportation work product in relation to highways?  10 percent?  1 percent?  .1 percent?

By the appropriate pencil sharpening in contrasting the incremental cost of transportation services going forward, I think a case can be made for trains, for the right kinds of trains.  Maybe even long-distance trains under special circumstances, or as an equal-cost alternative for those who can't or don't or won't drive or fly, but the financials of Amtrak appear to need to improve substantially to meet that test.

But the USPIRG numbers are little different than the "think tank numbers" regarding highways in contrast with trains in broad aggregate, only USPIRG interprets the same numbers from a different ideological perspective than the "think tanks."

[V.Payne]

Paul,

I by no means suggest any disrespect... I always enjoy a good discussion however. A lot of these things are well hidden or hinge on a definition.

As to sharpening my pencil on the ultimate returns to scale of intercity trains, I would suggest I have. In the paper I wrote on the Intercity Marketplace thread you will find a figure on Page 24 that address your concerns. It is based on a engineering economics model of the Crescent route (start with know capital and operational values) that also corresponds to points in the Amtrak supplied PRIIA Direct Cost tables. It also incorporates price elasticity of demand. You can get more background than I can post here within the paper, but I estimate a long run variable cost of $0.06/VM at 11-12 revenue cars, equipment and terminal capital included.

http://freepdfhosting.com/d68ae064e1.pdf 

As to David Lawyer's website, he didn't determine what the subsidy cost to the interstates. The reason why is this is not broken out in FHWA publications and he is running his numbers through that prism. On new high-volume limited access projects I am working on the capital and capital maintenance subsidy will be about $0.24 an automobile vehicle mile versus $0.013 in revenue. Then add in accident costs borne by the government.

Another thing that is not mentioned often is that the HCA that Lawyer refers to is a ratio of payment from each user class (auto or truck) to total user payments, this is done to take out the general fund subsidies of around half the total costs. You have to dig pretty deep to realize that. It also does not account for the level of past capital spending shown below.

As for proof, look at the figure below from the FHWA. This figure is for all roadways (when the FHWA says Highways, they oddly mean all roadways) so it includes a lot of averaging for roadways that were built without government assistance, say your neighborhood street, or have existed for a long time prior to user taxes.

Recall that an automobile is now only paying around $0.013/VM in state and federal user taxes incrementally, so the more roads we build the deeper we get in the hole under the current scheme. They haven't published this table recently, the curve isn't going down anymore...

Take a look at the USPIRG's explanation if you don't trust mine.

http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usf/do-roads-pay-themselves

[schlimm]

Thanks for the info, Paul.  Any idea of Mr. Lawyer's credentials or background?  He has interesting positions on a wide range of topics.  See: http://www.lafn.org/~dave/gov/income-tax-reform.txt  I only cite that as an example of some really creative and non-ideologically circumscribed thinking, something we need more of in discussions.

[Paul Milenkovic]

V.Payne

Paul,

You have several of your numbers wrong...

First, there are currently around 2.9 Trillion total vehicle miles (automobile and trucks, rural and city) of road travel. The yearly usage has been going down relative to the population since 2007, when it was a bit more than 3 Trillion. See Page 2 of the below link.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/12augtvt/12augtvt.pdf

Second, Amtrak can only really be compared to the rural (intercity use) interstate travel. There are only about 140 billion passenger (auto) vehicle miles a year on rural Interstates. But even that number counts rural commuting, not true intercity travel alone, though it leaves out intercity travelers crossing cities.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/vm1.cfm

Third, if Amtrak long distance consists we're expanded to about 8-12 revenue cars, those trains financial standing would improve substantially. They would become the lowest financial cost. Further, you still have the hundred some million in agency and commuter infrastructure costs for others that can be spread out over a larger base.

Forth, the FHWA budget does not include accident costs, so that really isn't an apples to apples comparison is it as we are talking about a common carrier versus your own your own till medicaid kicks in. How much did the estate of the Florida Auto Train accident victims get, something north of 10 million each right, I don't see that happening from your insurance agent for a lane departure accident. The auto insurance just pays your medical deductible and then turns you over to your health and/or life insurance.

Fifth, divide the FAA subsidy by takeoffs and landings as that is the unit work product of the FAA mostly. Once you do that the short haul flights, 200 miles to 500 miles, that are the logical competitor to Amtrak look at lot worse on the ongoing subsidy front per passenger mile.

Sixth, the FHWA administration budget was $1.7 Billion last time I looked. What amount of transportation are we getting for that money. Well, none of course! Granted some of it goes for research by others, but just for an order of magnitude check it shines an informative light on the "horrible" Amtrak subsidy, see Exhibit 6-6 at the link below.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2010cpr/chap6.htm

Seventh, realistically the LD train setup is the cheapest way to offer service as it stretches the most possible passenger miles out of a limited terminal investment and staffing, though I think you agree with that. Anybody else feel free to give evidence to the contrary.

There are a lot of people out there who are motivated by whatever payment they receive from some think tank, that tend to say outlandish things. You have to look at figures with a bit of a critical eye.

I think some people have a feeling of the above and that is the primary nexus of Amtrak political support in the LD states.

When I claim there are 4 trillion annual automobile passenger miles, that is perfectly consistent with about 3 trillion annual vehicle miles.  For however much we complain about the waste of "single-occupant motor vehicles", many car trips are conducted with one or more passengers.  So to say that I "have several of (my) numbers wrong" starting with overall auto usage, I don't know what I am supposed to say at this point.

The reason I keep coming back to the 4 trillion annual automobile passenger miles is that commentators keep coming back time and time again to an existential need for passenger trains, Amtrak passenger trains, and long-distance Amtrak passenger trains on account of pollution, road congestion, limited energy resources, and the economic costs of importing most of our oil.  Whether it is 4 trillion annual passenger miles or closer to 3 trillion annual passenger miles, it doesn't shift the fact that the automobile passenger miles are multiple hundreds-fold larger than the Amtrak passenger miles. 

If Amtrak is going to make anything more than a Burkean symbolic contribution to the problems of pollution, road congestion, and importing of oil, it is going to have to become multiples more efficient in the use of subsidy money, and the scale of train usage has to reach a level far beyond what is achieved even in Europe.  This has nothing to do whether the auto trips are all local and the train trips (in question) are intercity; it has to do with whether Amtrak is ever going to be a "player" in addressing the concerns that come up time and again in discussions.

You have a point there about the mere 140 billion auto (vehicle) miles on rural Interstates.  You also have a point about accident and accident medical costs needing to be considered.  You offered a subsidy rate of around 11 cents/vehicle mile, taking both the rural portion of the Interstates and the accident costs into account, which I had suggested works out to about 8 cents per rural-Interstate passenger mile, in contrast with the 23 cents/passenger mile Amtrak subsidy.

Yes, 8 cents per auto passenger mile is a lot higher than the low-ball figures from the "outlandish" and ideologically driven think tanks.  But even your more realistic figure of 8 cents per passenger mile/11 cents per vehicle miles is a long ways away from the 23 cent Amtrak subsidy.

Again, airline passenger miles are about a factor 100 greater than Amtrak passenger miles whereas the 15 billion for the FAA is a factor of 10 greater than the Amtrak subsidy, and this is leaving out the cost recovery from the "ticket tax" and fuel taxes paid directly or indirectly by airline passengers and also doesn't account for the general aviation usage of the system.  Suppose you say that the cost should be per trip segment, and with hub-and-spokes, even long-distance flights involve multiple trip segments, airlines probably have a multiple of the subsidy efficiency of Amtrak.

And if it is the "short haul flights, 200 miles to 500 miles" that are the logical competitor to Amtrak, where does that leave the long-distance trains?  Yes, most of the trips on the long-distance trains are in coach and for under 500 mile segments for intermediate city pairs on their routes.  The infamous Inspector General report observed as much and recommended serious cost savings based on it, a direction that was condemned by the advocacy community.  In other words, run "corridor" consists on the long-distance routes because 80% of the trips are of "corridor" duration, but we stuck our fingers in our ears and would have none of that.

Your point about the FHWA spending $1.6 billion on administration, well, get back to me with the administration share of the Amtrak budget, and let's put the passenger mile figures being administered into the same spreadsheet, not to mention that Federal highways and rural Interstates have an important common-carrier freight hauling component.

Finally, I would like to address the remark "Seventh, realistically the LD train setup is the cheapest way to offer service as it stretches the most possible passenger miles out of a limited terminal investment and staffing, though I think you agree with that. Anybody else feel free to give evidence to the contrary."

I have long talked about the concept of the LD train being a "bus on steel wheels."  Especially since for legacy/historical/formation of Amtrak taking over the common-carrier of passengers obligations of the railroads reasons, Amtrak gets to use the tracks for cheap, in trade for fighting freight traffic on the transcontinental main lines.  I had suggested, along your and others reasoning about LD trains getting the most passenger-mile bang for the buck, that the LD train should be able to at least break even on that basis.

I really don't know why this isn't so -- is it Amtrak's power dispatching of putting 2 or even 3 locomotive units of 4000+ HP each on trains that were handled by a Northern "back in the day"?  Of keeping crews "overnighting" in dorm on-train rather than rotating them on an off train?  Of legacy labor agreements (yes, I know Amtrak on-train service people work hard, but so does an intercity motorcoach driver -- not to get snarky, but do people know how much you are supposed to tip your motorcoach driver for the many services -- driver, conductor, trip guide, baggage handler -- that one person performs?)  

Of the large load of non-revenue cars in the consist -- baggage, crew dorm, lounge, diner?  That railroad cars are just plain expensive in first cost, multi-millions a piece instead of multi-hundred thousands for motor coaches, and just as expensive in maintenance?  That passengers are given so much space on a long-distance train but are packed liked sardines into an intercity motorcoach -- there is no free lunch, so maybe the much more comfortable accomodations that the advocacy community insists upon makes long-distance trains proportionately more expensive?

I would like to think that expanding the long-distance consists could achieve economy of scale, maybe even lowering the 23 cents/per passenger mile subsidy to the 8 cents/per passenger mile to be on par with the rural Interstate highway?  But given Amtrak's overall financials, instead of requesting evidence to the contrary, how about offering more evidence in support of the proposition?  Sharpen some pencils and demonstrate how the longer consists could be more cost effective?

Finally, with regard to the suggestion that I am stoopid and believe what is coming from the anti-train think tank, how about a person taking a gander at the David Lawyer Web site (just Google for it)?  He is not from a political think tank, he expresses that he is genuinely interest in understanding the environmental impact of transportation, and he has crunched numbers of railroad fuel efficiency as well as subsidy efficiency.  I haven't had anyone come back to me with "hmmm, an interesting insight" or "no, he as it wrong because he needs to correct such-and-such figures."  I haven't had any takers on this, but no, he is not going to warp your brain any more than I have.

And finally, finally, I have never advocated for abolishing long-distance trains.  But I do think that Amtrak needs to prioritize where it places scarce capital, and I am among the people critical of giving high-speed baggage cars first ranking.  And there are many in the advocacy community defending Amtrak on the high-speed baggage cars.

[V.Payne]

Paul,

You have several of your numbers wrong...

First, there are currently around 2.9 Trillion total vehicle miles (automobile and trucks, rural and city) of road travel. The yearly usage has been going down relative to the population since 2007, when it was a bit more than 3 Trillion. See Page 2 of the below link.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/12augtvt/12augtvt.pdf

Second, Amtrak can only really be compared to the rural (intercity use) interstate travel. There are only about 140 billion passenger (auto) vehicle miles a year on rural Interstates. But even that number counts rural commuting, not true intercity travel alone, though it leaves out intercity travelers crossing cities.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/vm1.cfm

Third, if Amtrak long distance consists we're expanded to about 8-12 revenue cars, those trains financial standing would improve substantially. They would become the lowest financial cost. Further, you still have the hundred some million in agency and commuter infrastructure costs for others that can be spread out over a larger base.

Forth, the FHWA budget does not include accident costs, so that really isn't an apples to apples comparison is it as we are talking about a common carrier versus your own your own till medicaid kicks in. How much did the estate of the Florida Auto Train accident victims get, something north of 10 million each right, I don't see that happening from your insurance agent for a lane departure accident. The auto insurance just pays your medical deductible and then turns you over to your health and/or life insurance.

Fifth, divide the FAA subsidy by takeoffs and landings as that is the unit work product of the FAA mostly. Once you do that the short haul flights, 200 miles to 500 miles, that are the logical competitor to Amtrak look at lot worse on the ongoing subsidy front per passenger mile.

Sixth, the FHWA administration budget was $1.7 Billion last time I looked. What amount of transportation are we getting for that money. Well, none of course! Granted some of it goes for research by others, but just for an order of magnitude check it shines an informative light on the "horrible" Amtrak subsidy, see Exhibit 6-6 at the link below.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2010cpr/chap6.htm

Seventh, realistically the LD train setup is the cheapest way to offer service as it stretches the most possible passenger miles out of a limited terminal investment and staffing, though I think you agree with that. Anybody else feel free to give evidence to the contrary.

There are a lot of people out there who are motivated by whatever payment they receive from some think tank, that tend to say outlandish things. You have to look at figures with a bit of a critical eye.

I think some people have a feeling of the above and that is the primary nexus of Amtrak political support in the LD states.

[Anonymous]

I am originally from the district that Shuster represented. My brother still lives there; he says that Shuster was one of the biggest spenders in the Congress. One visiting the district cannot help but be impressed by all the signs paying tribute to Shuster, i.e. The Bud Shuster Highway, etc.  

If I remember correctly, Shuster was helpful in getting additional funding for Steam Town. He also secured funding for the improvements at the Horseshoe Curve and the Railroaders Museum in Altoona.

[dakotafred]

Sorry, I had Bill confused with his father, Bud, who has not been in Congress for 10 years. The son does represent his father's old district.

[henry6]

I don't think it is only the politicians who are going to make a difference but also the business conditions, attitudes, and needs.  I believe that there is a slowly emerging consensus about how the transportation infrastructure and organization needs of the future have to be changed, adapted, and implemented in both the private and public sector, that there will be more intermodal services and more cooperative projects between the two sectors.  Passenger and freight, local and long distant and regional operations are all to be revised or at least rethought. 

[schlimm]

The results of the election nationally may have a positive impact for passenger rail.

[oltmannd]

dakotafred

If memory serves, Schuster is the Republicans' big highway guy.

His district is centered on Altoona.  He is very pro-RR.  I suspect he'd be a bit gentler to Amtrak than Mica.

[dakotafred]

John WR

Yes, I saw that, Mike.  Bill Schuster of Pennsylvania's 9th district may take over.  There still is the lame duck session but the days of Congressman Mica's "Holy Jihad" may be numbered.  
 

If memory serves, Schuster is the Republicans' big highway guy. I wouldn't look for much in the way of support for Amtrak from him. On the other hand, he might not have Mica's animus for Amtrak, either.

[Dakguy201]

MidlandMike

Trains NewsWire story today "Amtrak's status quo likely to continue" says another congressmen will likely replace Rep. Mika as chair of the committee, but it does not say why.

As a matter of good public policy, the Republicans have term limited their committee chairmen.  I believe the limit is 6 years.  Congressman Mica has reached the limit. 

[John WR]

Yes, I saw that, Mike.  Bill Schuster of Pennsylvania's 9th district may take over.  There still is the lame duck session but the days of Congressman Mica's "Holy Jihad" may be numbered.  
 

[MidlandMike]

oltmannd

Paul Milenkovic

John WR

Um....There are hours before the polls close in Florida, Don.  We don't know yet if Representative Mica will be reelected.  Do you have some special inside knowledge?

Yes.

It's really hard for incumbent reps to lose....He won big.

Trains NewsWire story today "Amtrak's status quo likely to continue" says another congressmen will likely replace Rep. Mika as chair of the committee, but it does not say why.

[n012944]

Dixie Flyer

  I live in Danvile, Kentucky and our 7 county area is about 100,000 people.  Lexington, Kentucky to Knoxville, Tennessee a distance of 160 miles has no train, bus or air service. 

According to mapquest, Danville Ky is 37 miles from the Lexington, Ky airport.  The Lexington airport gets air service from Delta, Allegiant, US Air, United and American.  

[oltmannd]

Dixie Flyer

I live in Danvile, Kentucky and our 7 county area is about 100,000 people.  Lexington, Kentucky to Knoxville, Tennessee a distance of 160 miles has no train, bus or air service. 

No.  Greyhound route 426 goes from Cincy to Atlanta and stops at Berea, only 30 miles from Danville.

http://extranet.greyhound.com/Revsup/schedules/pdf/426.pdf

[carnej1]

conrailman

Amtrak is Safe for another 4 Years?

I wouldn't count on that. Neither party has a sufficient mandate to enact their agendas and I expect continuing gridlock..

[conrailman]

Amtrak is Safe for another 4 Years?

[oltmannd]

Dixie Flyer

I would assume that Europe spends less on "interstate " type roads which needs to go in the equation also.

I wouldn't assume that.  Europe moves a lot more freight by highway than we do. 

[Dixie Flyer]

I would assume that Europe spends less on "interstate " type roads which needs to go in the equation also.

Number crunching be misleading when we are comparing apples and oranges.  A plane going from point A to B serves 2 end points  that the FAA provides traffic control and the cities provide airstrips for through bond issues (Your 15 billion total I assume) and they are happy to do it.  The train going between those two cities depending on the distance  (say 300-600) miles stops at 5-10 towns inbetween.  I live in Danvile, Kentucky and our 7 county area is about 100,000 people.  Lexington, Kentucky to Knoxville, Tennessee a distance of 160 miles has no train, bus or air service. 

I think you question is correct you have decide what is a fair expentiture on trains.  I think trains need to cover their fuel, labor, food and maintainance costs.  Then you need an annual equipment fund for engines and cars (500 million). Finally you need 2-5 billion fund for track, station improvements and maintainance.

 

Some how in North Carolina trains are being added, track is being improved, Norfork Southern seems happy and people are riding trains.  Whatever they are doing we need to learn something.

[oltmannd]

Paul Milenkovic

John WR

Um....There are hours before the polls close in Florida, Don.  We don't know yet if Representative Mica will be reelected.  Do you have some special inside knowledge?

Yes.

It's really hard for incumbent reps to lose....He won big.

[n012944]

conrailman

Paul Milenkovic

conrailman

Like i said before if we can spend 44 Billion on highways and 15 Billion Dollars a year on airplanes, we can find money for Poor Old Amtrak. When these other overseas Country spending 10 to 30 Billion a year. TSA is getting more money than Amtrak today.

This is like the now retiring Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin) when he first ran for that office, for any office as he was a businessman.  His opponent breathlessly accused him of charging the Defense Department more for a coffeecake than what he charged in his Kohl's Supermarkets.

When confronted with this in a debate, he was prepared with a sample Kohls' Supermarket coffee cake and a DOD cake.  He explained, "The one in the supermarket sells for $4.95.  The sell the other one to the Army for $15.  But you can see that the one I sell to the Army is larger and serves many more people, so it is actually a somewhat better value."  Oops!

The Interstates are said to accomodate 1/4 total US passenger miles of 4 trillion/year or about 1 trillion passengeer miles per year.  The airlines handle about 500 billion passenger miles/year.  Amtrak, about 6 billion passenger miles per year.

Leaving aside gas taxes and general revenue and trucks and general aviation aircraft, the 44 billion for the Interstates provides 1 trillion passenger-mile "servings" of transportation or 4.4 cents/passenger mile.  The 15 billion for the FAA serves 500 billion passenger miles or about 3 cents/passengeer mile.

Poor Old Amtrak gets 1.4 billion dollars to serve 6 billion passenger miles or about 23 cents per passenger mile.  Notice that Amtrak costs multiples of the other services in terms of passenger-miles per subsidy dollar.

The European countries are, in rough numbers, spending about 30 billion dollars to serve half the market share of our airlines, so their trains are roughly at a 4:1 cost disadvantage relative to our airlines.

So what are you proposing as a fair, equitable, or appropriate expenditure in the U.S. on trains?

 

Yes, also Amtrak 1.4 Billion Dollars a year Amtrak gives the Railroad Retirement trust fund, i think about 300 million every year, so that 1.4 billion is not clear money for spending.

Incorrect.  Railroad Retirement is a cost of doing buisness, just like employee pay and fuel.  

[conrailman]

Paul Milenkovic

conrailman

Like i said before if we can spend 44 Billion on highways and 15 Billion Dollars a year on airplanes, we can find money for Poor Old Amtrak. When these other overseas Country spending 10 to 30 Billion a year. TSA is getting more money than Amtrak today.

This is like the now retiring Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin) when he first ran for that office, for any office as he was a businessman.  His opponent breathlessly accused him of charging the Defense Department more for a coffeecake than what he charged in his Kohl's Supermarkets.

When confronted with this in a debate, he was prepared with a sample Kohls' Supermarket coffee cake and a DOD cake.  He explained, "The one in the supermarket sells for $4.95.  The sell the other one to the Army for $15.  But you can see that the one I sell to the Army is larger and serves many more people, so it is actually a somewhat better value."  Oops!

The Interstates are said to accomodate 1/4 total US passenger miles of 4 trillion/year or about 1 trillion passengeer miles per year.  The airlines handle about 500 billion passenger miles/year.  Amtrak, about 6 billion passenger miles per year.

Leaving aside gas taxes and general revenue and trucks and general aviation aircraft, the 44 billion for the Interstates provides 1 trillion passenger-mile "servings" of transportation or 4.4 cents/passenger mile.  The 15 billion for the FAA serves 500 billion passenger miles or about 3 cents/passengeer mile.

Poor Old Amtrak gets 1.4 billion dollars to serve 6 billion passenger miles or about 23 cents per passenger mile.  Notice that Amtrak costs multiples of the other services in terms of passenger-miles per subsidy dollar.

The European countries are, in rough numbers, spending about 30 billion dollars to serve half the market share of our airlines, so their trains are roughly at a 4:1 cost disadvantage relative to our airlines.

So what are you proposing as a fair, equitable, or appropriate expenditure in the U.S. on trains?

 

Yes, also Amtrak 1.4 Billion Dollars a year Amtrak gives the Railroad Retirement trust fund, i think about 300 million every year, so that 1.4 billion is not clear money for spending.

[Paul Milenkovic]

John WR

Um....There are hours before the polls close in Florida, Don.  We don't know yet if Representative Mica will be reelected.  Do you have some special inside knowledge?

Yes.