Amtrak's $16.15 burgers, riders paying $9.50

Remember the huge tens of billions of dollars expenditures that I pointed to for Amtrak just yesterday?  From Politico:

“I just went into this McDonald’s, and I could buy a drink for a dollar and a hamburger for a dollar. But if you buy a hamburger on Amtrak, it costs the taxpayers $6.65,” Mica said.
The media event was a follow-up to a Thursday hearing that focused on the railroad’s food and drink losses. A hamburger costs Amtrak $16.15, with riders paying $9.50, according to committee figures. Taxpayers pick up the remaining $6.65, Mica said.
“You may even see me on an Amtrak train with a sign that says, ‘Don’t eat the food, it adds to deficit spending,’” Mica said.
Toward the end of the presser, a train went by on the nearby elevated tracks, loudly blowing its horn. Mica seized the moment. “How much waste is going by? Please don’t buy the hamburgers!” he yelled at the train.
Mica also said Amtrak is violating a law, on the books since 1981, that states the railroad can’t lose money on food and beverage service. “They’re violating the law,” he said, “and I may look at some legal recourse to stop them from doing it.” . . .

Amtrak is losing lots of money, so what to do? How about spending $151 billion to build a 10 mile tunnel under Philly

Why a tunnel is necessary is hardly obvious to me.  I have traveled that route by train many times, and I don't see how a 10 mile tunnel will improve service very much.  From The Economist:  

And all this is for marginal improvements in speed and access. The tracks around and through Philadelphia aren't, generally, big obstacles to high-speed rail—the tunnels in and around Baltimore, Maryland are. It would be much cheaper to replace Baltimore's terrible tunnels than to build a fancy new one under Philadelphia. . . .

Of course, Amtrak has all sorts of other ways of spending taxpayer money.

The Philadelphia tunnel, unfortunately, isn't even the worst part of Amtrak's plan. That honour goes to a $7 billion renovation of Washington's Union Station (pictured), which Slate's Matthew Yglesias rightly calls "insane". Amtrak's cost estimate is many times higher than for similar projects in Europe. . . .