“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.
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.
Compare to bus companies, where the infrastructure is almost entirely not even their problem. The roads are simply dealt with by the government (built by private companies, who win contracts from the government). For whatever reason, that's not how we do rail infrastructure for the most part.
So, one could argue that Amtrak's rail infrastructure _should_ be entirely off-budget, because really it shouldn't be part of Amtrak at all, to make a comparison to bus companies more valid.
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.