According to Federal Railroad Administration data, the Brightline has been involved in at least 185 fatalities, 148 of which were believed not to be suicides, since it began operating, in December 2017. Last year, the train hit and killed 41 people—none of whom, as best as authorities could determine, was attempting to harm themselves. By comparison, the Long Island Rail Road, the busiest commuter line in the country, hit and killed six people last year while running 947 trains a day. Brightline was running 32.

Trains running people over is obviously bad, but people also die from being hit by cars. Reading the article I was wondering: are we making a big deal about Brightline because it's big and new, but actually we're better off overall now that there's a train because fewer people are driving and so fewer people are dying? And is this actually counterproductive fearmongering? Nope! Brightline is just really deadly, not just for a train, but even relative to driving.

While Brightline is of course much safer for occupants than driving, what I care about is the overall social impact: are there more or fewer deaths than in a non-Brightline world? This means counting everyone, including occupants, drivers, and pedestrians. Ideally we would compare fatality rates directly: how many deaths are there per passenger-mile for Brightline vs cars? These stats don't exist, but we can get decent estimates:

• For Brightline, per the article there have been 185 fatalities. [1] They don't publish a passenger-miles number, but there were about 5M passengers before they opened the Orlando section and then 1.6M long-distance and 1.1M short-distance in 2024. If we guess that the first 9.5 months of 2025 looked like 2024, that's an additional 1.3M long-distance and 0.9M short distance. In total that's 2.9M long-distance trips and 7M short-distance. Based on the distances involved, I'm going to guess 200mi for long distance and 50mi. This gives us a total of 930M passenger-miles, and 20 deaths per 100M passenger miles.

• For cars, Florida seems to have 1.42 deaths per 100M vehicle miles. If we guess that there's an average of 1.4 people per car, this is ~1 death per 100M passenger miles.

So Brightline is about 20x more deadly per passenger-mile (counting people inside and outside the vehicle) than driving, and the article isn't fearmongering. The Department of Transportation uses $13.7M for the statistical value of a human life, and 185 fatalities is $2.5B. And it's going up at about $0.5B/year. [2] Without safety improvements, in something like seven years the ongoing societal cost in deaths will have grown larger than it's initial $6B construction cost.

I do expect this to get better over time: some of these fatalities are people not being used to the trains, and as that changes I expect fewer people to do things like cross the tracks where they don't have good visibility or under an assumption that the only trains that might come by are slow freight trains. The government has also been making improvements like adding fencing, and you could probably fence the whole thing for under $100M [3]. Getting Brightline to be less deadly than cars will be a lot of work (a 20x reduction is hard) but since trains elsewhere manage to be much safer this seems plausible.

The key takeaway for me, however, is that people who advocated for Brightline on the idea that it would reduce deaths made a pretty serious mistake. That Brightline would get cars off the road was a standard talking point, and people seemed to assume that this would be be positive from a traffic fatality perspective. Here's the Rail Passengers Association saying this explicitly:

Regular train service along the corridor would remove as many as three million cars from regional highways each year, reducing both commuter stress and road fatalities. With 300 drivers killed in road accidents between 2004 and 2008, Interstate 95 has been ranked as the deadliest highway in the United States. A passenger rail alternative will thus save lives.

Advocates weren't wrong in the general case, since trains are normally much safer than cars even counting non-occupants. The problem was Brightline's specific route, with hundreds of grade crossings in densely populated areas and unfenced tracks that divide many places people want to move between. This is something people who know trains well should have been able to anticipate.

Since Brightline is following the laws, and there are strong legal protections for railroads, even if we decided Florida would be better off with Brightline shut down, it would be very difficult and would likely require federal legislation or a massively expensive buyout. So the best we can realistically do is safety infrastructure improvements, and there's already a lot of political motivation here. A 20x decrease in fatalities sounds very difficult, but combination of additional fencing, improved crossings, and increasing public familiarity with the trains may be able to bring fatalities down to where the train is at least competitive with driving.

[1] Arguably you should not count some fraction of the 37 suicides, as some of the people may have otherwise have chosen other ways to kill themselves. But even if we don't count all of them, dropping fatalities from 185 to 148, the bottom line doesn't change very much: 16x more deadly instead of 20x.

[2] The Atlantic says 42 deaths in 2024. At $13.7M/death this is $575M.

[3] The cooridor is 235mi, which is 2.5M ft when you count both sides. Installing fencing might be $25/ft, so $63M.