Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Amtrak's Acela rail line is profitable, despite averaging "only" 3.4 million passengers per year. Photo: Flicker, Sanfranannie
Amtrak's Acela service turns an operating profit, despite averaging "only" 3.4 million passengers per year. Photo: sanfranannie/Flickr
false

The Reason Foundation is one of the most persistent rail opponents in the United States. With remarkable consistency, Reason condemns high-speed rail, private intercity rail projects, and local transit expansions. No matter how shaky its numbers may be, you can count on Reason to undermine any transit project that runs on rails.

Shane Phillips at Better Institutions was looking over an editorial by Reason policy analyst Baruch Feigenbaum published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution last year. He found this passage pretty revealing: "A U.S. high-speed rail line would need ridership of 6 million to 9 million people per year to break even. The high-speed Acela service, despite operating in the busy Northeast Corridor, averages only 3.4 million passengers per year."

Phillips says these two sentences encapsulate the sloppiness of Reason's attacks on rail:

With Acela capturing barely half the "minimum" break-even ridership, one might imagine after reading Feigenbaum's article that the rail service has been a catastrophic failure. Clearly, we shouldn't waste our money on any more high-speed rail boondoggles. A quick look at actual facts, however, shows that Acela is doing quite well: despite its trains, which can only travel a maximum of 150 mph; its decrepit tracks, which don't allow the trains to travel anywhere near its max speed for most of its length; and the fact that it has to share many miles of those tracks with freight, Acela is killing it.

Here's [PDF] Amtrak's most recently monthly report, which shows Acela has generated over $240 million in operating profit -- literally more than half of its revenues -- since the beginning of the fiscal year.

But you won't find Reason acknowledging uncomfortable facts like these. Unfortunately, this kind of poorly-researched, easily refutable analysis permeates the Reason's baldly politically-motivated work.

Elsewhere on the Network today: The Transport Politic wonders whether it makes sense for transit agencies to consider expansion projects if they're struggling to provide basic service. BikeWalkLee says the Fort Myers, Florida, region should reconsider the use of Level of Service as a metric to evaluate streets. And Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space points out that Portland's light rail system, less scrutinized than its streetcar, has issues of its own.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s Wednesday’s Headlines

Is our Jetsons future is finally upon us? Plus, a new and better way to measure streets' level of service.

September 17, 2025

Op-Ed: Congress Has A Big Opportunity to Connect America By Intercity Bus

The next federal transportation bill could be a chance to connect rural America with buses like never before — and it will have spillover benefits nationwide, the CEO of one top bus company argues.

September 17, 2025

Breaking: US DOT Pulls Grants For Projects That Aren’t Focused on Cars

The Trump administration bias for "vehicular travel" — and the burning of fossil fuels that it requires — rears its ugly head again.

September 16, 2025

Seattle’s Human Population Is Up, But Its Car Population Isn’t

Urbanists have long been making that case that growth in Seattle is the most climate-friendly and easiest to support with transit and infrastructure. And it's happening.

September 16, 2025

Tuesday’s Headlines Stay Safe

Political rhetoric notwithstanding, you're much safer on a bus or a train than in a car, or walking or biking near cars.

September 16, 2025
See all posts