
Amtrak Could Turn a Profit for the First Time - jonbaer
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/11/15/amtrak-profit-train-ceo-richard-anderson
======
CydeWeys
It's worth pointing out that the intent of transportation infrastructure isn't
to turn a profit, but to be a potent multiplier for economic gains in other
segments of the economy.

There's barely a road in the entire country that's turned a profit (gas and
vehicle registration taxes don't come close to covering road construction
costs, and of course most roads aren't tolled), yet we still rightly consider
roads as being worth it. We should treat our rail, transit, and other
transportation infrastructure similarly. Expecting a profit is completely
missing the point, but doing so is a nice bonus.

~~~
rayiner
Nobody is expecting Amtrak to turn a real profit. Even when Amtrak breaks even
in operating costs, Congress still pays all capital costs. Amtrak got a $1.8
billion subsidy in 2018.

The real issue is how much we’re paying in subsidies compared to how much
we’re paying in subsidies for other forms of transportation, and perhaps what
other people are paying in subsidies for the same kinds of transport.

Highways get about $75 billion in subsidies (what’s not covered by gas tax). A
lot more than Amtrak for sure. But highways carried over 3 trillion passenger
miles last year. Amtrak was just 6.3 billion. We spent 50x as much on highways
as Amtrak, but got 500x as much mileage out of those highways.

(You can throw in pollution externalities, etc., but even if you use current
carbon recapture methods to suck out CO2 from driving, and ignore the fact
that Amtrak’s mainly east coast operations are not powered by renewables,
driving still comes out ahead.)

~~~
noobermin
This country has been reconfigured to force almost everyone to drive.
Comparing the two on that basis is not fair. Finally, the full cost of car
dependence beyond just pollution which is a big one is not bourne by the
government but by drivers, just look at the car insurance industry.

~~~
ThomPete
Its not been forced, driving is just more flexible and convenient and
practical. This is especially true when get kids.

~~~
ezzzzz
I guess it depends on where you live (hence the downvoting), but even in a
place like NYC, I imagine managing small children on the subway would be
pretty challenging.

~~~
sempron64
I live in Brooklyn in NYC and I purchased a car when we were expecting. It is
impossible to take a baby on public transit to most places. Buses are not
equipped for strollers. Train stations are crowded and inaccessible to
strollers. It takes a lot of physical energy to move a child through public
transit. Our family, friends, the doctor, babysitter, and schools are not all
walking distance and not all at expensive real estate near the train. Having a
vehicle is empowering for my family and most like it.

~~~
burfog
Although I'm all in favor of cars, taking just one baby on public transit
isn't much different from going by yourself on public transit. The trick is a
sling. Don't even buy a stroller. There are several types of slings for
babies. You can use one with a padded pocket and strap, one with fancy parts,
a big long strip of cloth, or even just a folded bed sheet with a knot behind
your shoulder.

~~~
ThomPete
You can't do slings when the kids are older and you still need it if you are
going to walk even if they can walk.

------
yingw787
I honestly really like Amtrak, at least on the Northeast Regional. No baggage
fees, large comfortable chairs (I thought coach class was business the first
time I rode it, then I discovered business class had tables), no real security
restrictions (yet), the notion of quiet cars, and nice scenery. Maybe it's
because I don't ride Amtrak regularly and so every time I ride it it's a
novelty, but I underrated it and it exceeded my expectations every time so
far.

If you're not going between D.C. and Boston then maybe it'll be different, but
if you're riding on the one line Amtrak has to keep operational or it'll die
completely, I think it should be fine.

~~~
bradleyjg
NYC to DC round trip is 6 hours scheduled time by train or 3 hours scheduled
time by air. Granted Penn and Union stations are more convenient than Newark
and Reagan airports, but not _that_ much more convenient.

It is a nicer trip though, I'll give you that. But not nice enough to mean an
extra day away from home.

~~~
mattkrause
The actual train trip from NYC to DC is 3-3.5 hours each way, and both ends
are smack in the middle of the city.

If you’re flying, Dulles and BWI are 45 minutes from downtown DC (or more);
ditto for the NYC end, and you need to factor in another hour+ for security. I
think air travel might end up slower—-and it’s certainly less pleasant.

~~~
frutiger
> and you need to factor in another hour+ for security

Just an anecdote, but with TSA Pre, I haven’t needed more than 15 minutes for
security, flying domestically and internationally several times per year for
the past few years.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _with TSA Pre, I haven’t needed more than 15 minutes for security_

Same. With Clear, that goes down to 5 minutes tops. Add in airport lounges,
and showing up a bit early goes from being a nuisance to a pleasure (or
opportunity to be productive).

I’m a huge fan of trains, but they’re only marginally competitive for
passengers in the Northeast.

~~~
ghaff
At least for the north or south subset of the Northeast Corridor the type of
transportation honestly boils down to preference. Train is in the comfortable
but relatively pricey and slow end of the equation. I could drive from Central
Mass to New York cheaper and faster than train but I hate doing that drive.

------
gexla
If Richard Anderson is walking with a bit of a swagger today, now you know
why. Congrats to him. We should put this guy in the White House. He has done
the seemingly impossible.

> “Our biggest challenge is I go testify in Congress and all we talk about is
> French toast on dining cars or food,” he says. “We aren't talking about the
> really big infrastructure issues and transportation congestion issues that
> all the people in this country want a solution for.”

Of course! It's a waste of time talking to these people. Please keep the
subject on french toast, because if they're going to screw something up, let
it be a breakfast dish. And lets extrapolate this out to all other subjects
and consider how they would do with all the policies the progressive left are
dreaming up.

------
ronanyeah
I just used Amtrak to travel across the US as I didn't want to bring my
electric skateboard on a plane.

It is a very high quality service.

~~~
rayiner
Did you get there on time?

~~~
jrockway
I don't think you pick Amtrak to arrive somewhere on time. You bring some
books, read them, relax, stare out the window, chat with people in the dining
car, and eventually reach your destination. Chilling out on the train is part
of your vacation. (I rode the California Zephyr from Chicago to Oakland when I
was like 10, and still remember most of the trip. It was amazing, even for an
easily-bored 10 year old.)

The reality is, intercity trains are not an efficient way to travel in the
United States. Most of the important cities are far apart, because it's a very
large country with a lot of empty space. If you need to be somewhere, book a
flight. It's less expensive and if you give yourself a day of leeway you will
probably never be late to your thing, barring some sort of natural disaster.

I am a huge railfan but I have accepted that the geography of the US doesn't
make train travel as viable as say, Japan. Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka are the
three largest cities and are comparable in distance between each other like
Chicago, Springfield, and St. Louis. If New York was where Chicago is, Chicago
was where Springfield is, and LA was where St. Louis is, high speed rail would
be enormously popular in the US. But New York and LA are 2500 miles apart, 10%
around the world from each other.

I even question California High Speed Rail. San Francisco / Silicon Valley and
LA are both big metro areas with a lot of money, but SF/LA are 41% farther
apart than Tokyo and Osaka. Japan got very lucky that its two largest cities
are actually very close to each other. Building the Shinkansen was an enormous
engineering challenge, but one that was very clearly profitable. It's so
profitable they're building another Shinkansen between the two cities, taking
a shorter route and using faster trains. In the US... such a city pair does
not exist.

OK this is going very off-topic from your exact comment... but it's something
I wanted to talk about. Sorry.

~~~
avar
Your entire geography argument goes out the window if you look at China's
high-speed rail system instead of Japan's.

E.g. Shanghai - Kunming is more than 2200 km and takes between 10-12 hours[1].
At that speed LA-SF would take around 3 hours. For context the flight time is
an hour and a half, so when you account for airport overhead, taxiing etc. the
train would take around around the same time, and be a more pleasant mode of
transport.

The density argument also goes both ways. A country like Japan is going to
find it much harder to find empty space to place rail than somewhere like the
US.

There's a lot of reasons for why the US isn't doing what China's doing with
high-speed rail, but those reasons are mainly political, not geographical.

1\. [https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/shanghai-
kunmi...](https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/shanghai-kunming.htm)

~~~
rayiner
China isn’t a good example to point to because we have no idea whether China
is making intelligent trade offs about how to use its resources. It’s an
authoritarian economy. It could end up that in 50 years the whole thing
collapses from its own weight.

Europe is a better example because it least the government must be somewhat
accountable for its guns versus butter trade offs. And if you look at things
like Macron trying to privatize SNCF (with its massive unsustainable debt
levels), that should give us pause about the long term viability of rail even
in dense places like France.

~~~
moccachino
From a cursory glance it seems to me that SNCF's debts are due to them
financing all of their infrastructure instead of the French state paying for
it (directly, it of course is indirectly), and then the argument goes back to
the current top comment here: The real value of a good transport network is
the add-on economic effects.

Also from a security perspective, you can't hijack a train and crash it into
some building (it has to stay on the tracks), so that's a plus for trains.

Finally a domestic train causes about 41 g/km of CO2 emissions, while a
domestic flight causes about 254 g/km (accounting for altitude) [0]

[0] [https://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-49349566](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566)

------
arbuge
“Where we want to be as America's railroad is to cover all of our operating
costs through our revenues,” [the CEO] says, “and then use the grant that we
receive from our owners, the United States government, to invest in the
infrastructure, the rail infrastructure across America.”

That's some unconventional accounting. Most GAAP accountants would tell you
that capital investments should be amortized over their expected lifetime,
with the first depreciation hit in the year they're made. That would of course
mean an additional expense to cover before calling yourself profitable.

~~~
perspective1
In that quote the CEO's describing operating cash flow, a GAAP measure.
Nothing about it is unconventional. And it includes real-world depreciation to
a large degree since maintenance costs are part of operating expenditures. The
problem is the article's author omitted discussing profit per se, not that the
CEO's goal is having positive operating cash flow.

------
samstave
I've commuted on Amtrak quite a bit - sac to bay area...

And I have looked into using them even more - but their is a litany of reasons
why its impractical:

THeir ticket prices, staffing, schedules, lack of full-through-connection
services, and delays all but make it hard to use as a service for all but one
specific type of commuter.

Lets look at staffing.

They will know that its the commute hour; yet they will schedule ONE ticket
agent at the counter in a major station - who has no incentive to be efficient
with their tasks, and have made myself and MANY others miss the trains they
were trying to get to. When you complain to the staff, they immediately take
an attitude. Once when I asked why they only had one ticket teller during the
major rush hour, the ticket teller didnt answer me, but called the Amtrak
police to come question me. (I was being polite - and asked matter-of-fact why
they would make such an oversight.)

Pricing: The tickets are way over priced for the service. Also, lets look at
the "rewards" benefit - and the "10-pass" packets.

1) The rewards - it costs $19 to go from Sac to Martinez. You get (2) reward
points per dollar you spend. For that same $19 leg to redeem points for a
"free" ticket costs 900 points. -- That means you have to spend $450 to get
ONE $19 reward.

2) A 10 pack ticket expires after 45 days. No matter what. Last holiday season
- with validations, office shutdowns, holidays etc - there was no way to use
the tickets I had until after the new year - yet they would "expire" on 12/31
- no matter what.

Their rewards points often fail to show up on your account - and its a tedious
process to rectify - and even when you do rectify, it take more than 3-weeks
for them to hit your account.

The pricing to go any distance, is just absolutely too high.

Now, the good things about Amtrak:

They have power, wifi and a snack car. The cars are clean (generally), and the
ride is smooth - and actually faster than driving (more relaxing at least)
along 80.

\---

I really want Amtrak to succeed - but I wish they would address the problems
they do have.

~~~
eisa01
You can’t buy the tickets in an app or similar?

That’s why you do in Norway, and I guess large parts of the developed world

~~~
vonmoltke
Yes, you can. You can also show your ticket to the conductor via the app. I
have never interacted with a human when buying an Amtrak ticket.

------
yostrovs
Amtrak is only somewhat successful when it is essentially a regional carrier,
like LIRR in New York or Metra in Chicago. When it is a long distance train,
it is a miserable failure from the financial side and customer experience. The
Northeast corridor acts like a regional route, focusing on commuters, and
that's what saves it. People in America refuse to use Amtrak for travel.

~~~
bobthepanda
Amtrak's long distance service is more akin to the Essential Air Service, in
that it connects lots of small, otherwise unconnected rural areas and is not
expected to make a profit.

Amtrak has always been a company with two halves, and Congress really should
just split it to stop this Jekyll and Hyde tug of war about what exactly the
company is supposed to do.

~~~
nordsieck
> Amtrak's long distance service is more akin to the Essential Air Service, in
> that it connects lots of small, otherwise unconnected rural areas and is not
> expected to make a profit.

If that's true, it seems like those communities would be better served by
subsidized long distance bus travel instead.

I understand that doesn't make a whit of difference to congress, though.

~~~
maxerickson
Amtrak does contract with regional bus carriers:

[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-
RCED-95-138/h...](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-
RCED-95-138/html/GAOREPORTS-RCED-95-138.htm)

------
bbanyc
Big if true, but I don't know whether to trust these figures. The Rail
Passengers Association has accused Amtrak of cooking its books -
[https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-
now/news/releases/a...](https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-
now/news/releases/amtraks-route-accounting-fatally-flawed-misleading-wrong/)
\- but of course the RPA isn't an unbiased source either.

------
shmageggy
> _“Our biggest challenge is I go testify in Congress and all we talk about is
> French toast on dining cars or food,” he says. “We aren 't talking about the
> really big infrastructure issues and transportation congestion issues that
> all the people in this country want a solution for.”_

This is infuriating.

~~~
progval
Almost literally bikeshedding.
[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding#Etymology](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding#Etymology)

~~~
aitchnyu
I miss the previous team where the issues are literally titled "X
bikeshedding". Much better than having meetings where bikeshed issues get
recycled for months.

------
Shivetya
It is a lie.

Counting subsidies from eighteen states as revenue does not make you
profitable and Amtrak does exactly that. Plus they have such a huge backlog of
repairs and maintenance so any "profit" claims are meaningless when you keep
putting off maintaining your system and cars. However they make sure where the
most noise is where the most investment goes.

Plus fleet age is a real problem[0] and requires billions of investment to
bring that up to date

I love trains as much as the next person but Amtrak isn't profitable and they
don't strive for actual profits because they know they are protected.

[0][https://www.bts.gov/content/age-and-availability-amtrak-
loco...](https://www.bts.gov/content/age-and-availability-amtrak-locomotive-
and-car-fleets)

~~~
WhompingWindows
What happens if we consider the massive subsidies given to fossil fuel
companies -- Are they still profitable, when you factor in the massive damage
their products are inflicting?

------
xvilka
Still, when you travel with trains in US, it's like traveling back in time
compared to Europe and Asia.

~~~
microcolonel
That's largely because automobiles, buses, and airplanes are better suited to
the geography of the United States. There are corridors and regions where
trains make sense in the U.S, but many rail lines went from necessary to
obsolete with the natural progression of technology.

AmTrak was created when the private passenger rail operators were failing, and
they were failing for a good reason: demand for long-haul passenger rail
service declined sharply when better alternatives entered the market.

The one thing that rail can do better than these other forms is _comfort_ and
_service_ , but for the vast majority of people, they would rather be able to
afford to make it to their destination.

~~~
jorblumesea
> better suited to the geography of the United States.

China has a similar geography to the US, and similar sizes and run lengths of
their high speed space. The US has decided to build roads and highways instead
of investing in other transit options. It's not that it makes "more sense",
it's that the US has intentionally built things this way, for a variety of
corporate and historical reasons.

> many rail lines went from necessary to obsolete with the natural progression
> of technology.

What? You mean, except for literally every other developed country has well
developed rail lines that transport billions of people with levels of
unmatched efficiency?

> when better alternatives entered the market.

Only because the market was intentionally weighted against that form of
transit.

~~~
microcolonel
> _China has a similar geography to the US, and similar sizes and run lengths
> of their high speed space._

China has extreme restrictions on domestic flights, and a great deal more
population; and on top of that, so much is different about the way things are
done in China, the state will just bulldoze things for looking too "towny".

> _What? You mean, except for literally every other developed country has well
> developed rail lines that transport billions of people_

Britain is a developed country with well developed rail lines, but probably
few there would tell you that it's great right now. Some of the failure there
can be attributed to their poorly-designed pseudo-privatization of the trains
and crews themselves (but not the rails or facilities, which remain national),
but a big part of the reason that was politically viable was that the rail
services weren't all that great when they were national either. France's TGV
is really cool, when the operators aren't on strike.

Up here in Ontario, we have one relatively useful rail corridor, but the
further you get from Toronto, the less the passenger load. On my morning train
from Hamilton, there are (charitably) a couple dozen passengers on the whole
train for several stations. As for _national_ rail in Canada, it is rare to
hear that anyone has used Via. I've used it once in my life, but I found out
later that a bus on the same route would have been faster and dramatically
cheaper.

Long-haul rail networks are attractive to politicians because of what they
represent, but to transport consumers, the reality of long haul passenger rail
is that it is rarely the best option. When passengers bear the cost, long-haul
passenger rail is, by natural means, rarely the best option in the U.S.

> _with levels of unmatched efficiency?_

"unmatched" by what? High speed rail is extremely capital intensive, and
expensive at the point of sale, and that's when you don't have any trouble
clearing land for it. In the U.S, most of the viable places for passenger rail
already have rail lines, but they are not appropriate for high speed rail.
Conventional passenger rail is too slow to attract fares, and is still very
expensive.

Dude it's alright to like trains, trains are cool; but none of what you said
justifies the subsidies that would be required in order to make a
comprehensive U.S. long-haul passenger rail network that's worth using, and no
policy would make it worth the cost.

If you have some brilliant business practice, policy, or idea that will change
this, I implore you to develop it! :- )

~~~
travisporter
I mean, absolute statements like yours can be easily disproven. If carbon is
taxed, gasoline or kerosene becomes expensive, a rail system is justified for
cost.

So you’re just saying give up on the dream, its too Late. Commercial rail is
expensive, too slow.

Several big cities can be interconnected in a profitable way if NIMBYism
changes. Why argue about an extensive rail network if even big cities like
Houston and Dallas don’t have rail?

~~~
Gibbon1
> Several big cities can be interconnected in a profitable way if NIMBYism
> changes.

It's not even NIMBYism. Consider the utter hate that California's high speed
rail gets on HN despite very much no one being negatively effected by it. Then
consider what a freeway does when it's run through a city.

------
raviolo
I hope one day we stop comparing rail to cars on passenger-mile basis - like
infrastructure costs per passenger-mile. These are apples and oranges. There
is zero similarities between riding on modern trains and driving.

I’ve taken hundreds of trips, anywhere between 2 and 8 hours, on TGV, ICE, and
Eurostar trains in Europe. I loved it every time and came out refreshed even
after longer trips. At times when I wanted to get work done (probably 60-75%
of total time spent on trains) I was as productive - likely more productive,
due to lack of distractions - as at the office. In contrast, I don’t think I
can remember any road trip lasting more than 2 hours when I could say I
enjoyed it; many times I was so exhausted that I needed rest upon arriving to
destination.

So, if we are going to try to fit this into some sort of economic model let’s
not forget about countless billions of hours of productivity loss due to
people stuck behind the wheel staring at traffic.

Not to mention both emotional and physical strain associated with driving
(nope, can not stand up when you like, or walk over to the buffet car for a
coffee), respective health care costs, and more productivity losses. Once we
do that, the picture will be very different. It’s sad we in the US haven’t
realized this yet.

------
ykevinator
I use Amtrak to go to nyc all the time. It's a pleasure. If they (or some
scrappy start-up) could halve the price and halve the time, it would be
revolutionary.

~~~
empath75
I take the Acela for work all the time and love it. It’s too expensive for me
to take it with my family though.

~~~
dillonmckay
What route do you take?

------
chiefalchemist
Amtrak's lack of profitablity isn't the issue per se.The lead here is who
ultimately benefits. These subsidizes don't benefit the masses. They are an
entitlement for those who don't need entitling.

------
ikawe
FTA

> The host railroads have been obligated to give the company preference over
> freight trains so Amtrak can run on time, but that statute has not been
> enforced, he says.

Anyone know the details on this? It’s something I’ve experienced to a degree
and a complaint I’ve heard from other riders.

~~~
pedantsamaritan
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308)

[http://blog.amtrak.com/2019/05/why-are-amtrak-trains-
delayed...](http://blog.amtrak.com/2019/05/why-are-amtrak-trains-delayed-by-
freight-trains/)

[https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/270612-amtrak-
prot...](https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/270612-amtrak-protests-
move-to-prioritize-freight-trains)

------
TYPE_FASTER
Short flights are fine until they’re canceled and you go to the rental car
counter and they charge you $500 for a day rental because, hey, supply and
demand amirite?

------
TheHypnotist
Well now there is no excuse for not upgrading the northeast corridor.

------
jorblumesea
Why do we care about public transportation turning a profit? The benefit of a
good transit network is massive and far above simply the fare fees.

------
kaonashi
It shouldn't be pseudo-privatized and should be further subsidized, the fact
that it's become extractionary shouldn't be celebrated.

~~~
djsumdog
I agree. Almost all nations have their rail subsidized. Really all transport
has to be subsidized by the State, going back to the Roman era.

Toll highways cover a fraction of operating costs. In most cities, your bus
fair pays for 50% or less of the cost to run the bus. States use transport to
build commerce, and it's difficult to measure what revenue that generates.

Funding needs to be pumped into AmTrak to help expand some of the very limited
high speed rail we're just starting to see in the USA, including Florida's
Brightline (now Virgin Trains) and the half-canceled California project.

------
droithomme
> Have you ever actually taken Amtrak?

Yes I have and your statement is correct. Amtrak is almost entirely
dysfunctional but rail as a concept is not dysfunctional and actually works in
many other countries.

It's like healthcare, which is an absolute shitshow in the US, however in the
rest of the developed world it's not a shitshow.

Likewise with the military.

What is it about the US that makes so many fundamental services needed for the
functioning of society into shitshows?

~~~
Buge
With the military, I think other countries around the world intentionally
don't invest much because they know they can rely on the US's military to
scare off attacks.

Healthcare might be the same thing. US residents pay a lot for healthcare, and
that's used to fund healthcare research. Then the products of that research
are given to other countries without them having to pay much.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I think other countries around the world intentionally don't invest much
> because they know they can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks.

Ukraine has proved that's not true for US-friendly countries facing US-hostile
foes, which is essentially the optimal scenario short of actual formal
alliance, so I don't think that actually is a plausoble explanation except
_possibly_ for formal US allies.

~~~
jessaustin
This is a really insightful example. It pretty near demolishes all the self-
serving theories pushed by MIC-underwritten think tanks etc. So what are we
left with? Maybe most other nations have just rationally decided that human
life can and should be more peaceful, so it's not necessary to stockpile
enough armaments to kill all humans fifty times over.

~~~
briandear
How much more would Korea have to spend on their military if they left the US
shield? Or Japan? Or Taiwan? Or the Philippines?

And the US did provide substantial aid to the Ukraine. The US has provided
over $1.5 billion to Ukraine. How much did Germany provide?

~~~
realityking
About $860 Million from Germany since 2014. That‘s on top of $3.8 billion from
the EU where Germany is the biggest net contributor.

Source: [https://www.csis.org/analysis/not-contributing-enough-
summar...](https://www.csis.org/analysis/not-contributing-enough-summary-
european-military-and-development-assistance-ukraine-2014)

------
campuscodi
I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to lose more money by next Saturday.

------
curiousgal
Good for them. No wonder they're not focusing on cross-country, the US is
_huge_ compared to Europe.

~~~
kgwgk
Depends on what do you mean by "Europe". The continent is slightly larger than
the US.

~~~
jcranmer
Copenhagen is closer to Zurich than Chicago is to NYC. Even Paris/Berlin is
closer than Chicago/NYC.

The US's major cities are not close to each other, with the exception of the
North-East Corridor, and the distances involved are far larger than most
corresponding distances in Europe--you have to be talking about trips between
Spain and very deep into Russia to start to compare against the NYC/LA
pairing.

~~~
tptacek
Some data:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8713324](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8713324)

~~~
curiousgal
This is exactly what I meant by my initial comment.

