Talk about building a high-speed rail line between Chattanooga and Atlanta started more than a decade ago, but it has produced few tangible results over the years. That is about to change. A presentation by the Georgia Department of Transportation in Chattanooga on Thursday moved the discussion into a more active phase by unveiling three possible routes to connect the cities. That’s an essential step if the project is to reach fruition within a reasonable time frame.
GDOT officials offered the public here detailed explanations of how the trio of possible routes or “corridors” were chosen from an original group of nine proposals. Each of the routes was rated on travel time, population access, employment access, ridership, environmental impact and the potential for economic viability. Only three survived the necessarily tough vetting process.
The most highly rated of the suggested routes begins in downtown Chattanooga, travels to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport and thence to Atlanta. All three proposed routes closely parallel I-75 to the I-285 perimeter and then take slightly different routes to downtown Atlanta and to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. More work, including detailed environmental impact and rights-of-way studies, must be done before a final route is chosen and a proposal made to the U.S. Department of Transportation. That could come as soon as 2012. That’s a valid timetable.
There’s little doubt a high-speed rail connector would benefit the region. Traffic between Chattanooga and Atlanta is already heavy, and it will get worse.
GDOT officials and other experts generally agree that I-75, as well as U.S. Highways 27 and 41, the other major highways in the Atlanta-Chattanooga corridor, will be operating at or above capacity by 2025. High-speed rail not only offers a viable transportation alternative. It also holds the promise of reducing fuel consumption, which is essential to protect the environment and to reduce independence on high-priced fossil fuels. Mass transit is the most efficient way to move large numbers of people in an environmentally sound manner.
Selecting proposed routes for additional study allows the project to move forward. It does not, however, mean that the high-speed rail connection will become fact.
There’s no guarantee the final proposal will win federal approval or funds. Indeed, with pledges by newly elected officeholders to hold the line on or to cut spending, it is possible that the former could come, but without the latter, given the likely cost – between $6 billion and $9 billion – of a high-speed system. That would be foolish. An investment in well-planned and operated mass transportation should provide a significant return in both dollars and in improved quality of life and environment.