Georgia’s rail dreams a taxpayer nightmare
Few misguided love affairs seem to endure quite like government’s obsession with passenger rail. Policymakers see it as a lower-carbon emission alternative to flying or driving, a method of alleviating roadway and airport congestion and a form of government-backed economic development. Many officials as a result want rail, want it everywhere and want it now.
The problem is that the promise of rail may not live up to its reality in the United States, but if bureaucrats get their way, more of it could be coming to the Peach State. The Georgia Department of Transportation has been conducting a feasibility study on building an expansive rail network from Atlanta to Savannah that also includes Athens, Statesboro, Milledgeville, Macon and Augusta.
The study alone costs about $10 million, and as part of it, GDOT recently asked Georgians to take a survey disclosing how much they would be willing to spend for a train ticket to the coast. The government probably should have invested those millions elsewhere and just asked me: A government-funded Atlanta-to-Savannah route is a fraught proposal.
Before I rain on GDOT’s train parade, I am not inherently anti-passenger rail. It can serve an important role in many situations, and I have ridden on numerous trains in Europe where a sprawling network exists that will shuttle you to just about any city and competes with flights – driving airfares down.
What works in Europe doesn’t always work here. In fact, Europeans are more likely to see rail as a necessity than Americans. They have a much lower rate of personal automobile ownership than we do. We love cars and view them as our primary mode of transportation. That aside, to keep the European network online and growing, it is highly subsidized by taxpayers, which is almost surely what would be required for an Atlanta-to-Savannah route.
How much would it cost? I am guessing GDOT’s study will provide some eye-popping numbers, but they may not scratch the surface. Just look at the California debacle. “Voters first approved a high-speed rail proposal in 2008 that would connect Los Angeles to San Francisco by 2020,” the Los Angeles Times reported in 2024.
“That end date has changed considerably over time. There is no set timeline for when anyone will be able to ride the entire 494-mile stretch from Anaheim to San Francisco. The current focus centers on the Central Valley, where officials estimate the 171-mile line from Merced to Bakersfield will be finished between 2030 and 2033.”
These blown timelines are the least of California’s worries. “Officials estimate it could cost about $35 billion to finish the first line from Bakersfield to Merced and roughly $100 billion more to complete the route from Los Angeles to San Francisco — about $100 billion more than what was originally proposed years ago,” the report continued.
Georgia would probably do a better job than California, but the project could still drain state coffers and take much longer than anticipated, and for what? WABE notes that GDOT is tinkering with the idea of a range of trip times, from 2.5 hours to 5 hours, which is a bit disappointing. It only takes about 3.5 hours to drive from Atlanta to Savannah without traffic, or a flight costs around $199 and takes 40-50 minutes.
I am sure some people would opt against driving or flying to Savannah, but would it be enough? History suggests the answer is no. Georgia used to have a passenger Atlanta-to-Savannah rail line, but it ceased operating in 1971. Had demand been higher, it would probably still be in operation. Despite this, GDOT is mulling its return.
“The goal of the study is to produce a plan by early 2028 that includes where funding would come from to build and operate passenger rail service and who would operate it,” according to WABE. “There are also separate ongoing rail studies, including Atlanta-Chattanooga-Nashville-Memphis and Atlanta-Charlotte.”
I am dubious on the chances of any of these passenger lines coming to fruition anytime soon, and for good reason. They would come with enormous costs on taxpayers and demand might not sustain the business. Again, I am not opposed to passenger rail. If a private company wants to invest its own money to bankroll the entire project, then I support them, but I suspect that rail companies know that it is far too risky of a venture.
That ought to be enough to end the rail debate, but in spite of reason, many government officials cannot quit their love affair with rail.