<\/p>\n
Amtrak employees wait outside to greet passengers for the Texas Eagle train linking San Antonio and Austin. A newly-released study commissioned by Travis County considers the possibility of building a new passenger rail line between the two cities along Texas 130 and Interstate 10.<\/p>\n
Christopher Lee Staff Photographer<\/p>\n
A newly-released study commissioned by Travis County concludes that it is possible, from an engineering perspective, to build a new passenger rail line linking San Antonio and Austin, running not along Interstate 35 but the Texas 130 toll road and a stretch of Interstate 10.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The problem: It could cost up to $13.5 billion\u00a0\u2014 meaning it would rank among the most expensive infrastructure projects in Texas history, on par with<\/a> the ongoing $13 billion revamp of Houston\u2019s downtown freeway system. The cost would dwarf that of the multi-year expansions of Interstate 35 and Loop 1604 in San Antonio which\u00a0\u2014 with budgets of $3 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively\u00a0\u2014 are considered mega-projects in their own right.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n ALSO READ: TxDOT again pushes S.A. to Austin rail, but will Union Pacific play ball?<\/a><\/p>\n Most of the rail line \u2014 53.7 out of a total of roughly 90 miles \u2014 would have to be elevated on columns within the medians of I-10 and Texas 130, according to the study, prepared by the engineering firm HNTB. Each mile of elevated line would cost an estimated $80 million, while the line at ground level would cost $40 million per mile.<\/p>\n Travis County Judge Andy Brown is undeterred. He took issue with that cost estimate, pointing out that a large portion, 45%, is marked as contingency \u2014 in other words, intended to represent unforeseen costs. On a mile-by-mile basis, it costs more to expand a highway than lay new rail, he said in an interview.<\/p>\n He believes that a new rail route following Texas 130 and I-10 could be the solution to the problem which has confounded South Texas leaders for more than 20 years, of how to establish decent commuter service between the two growing metropolises. But rather than carry passengers, the route should be built as a new freight line for Union Pacific, he said \u2014 the national company that owns the only active rail line linking the cities, parallel to Interstate 35.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Union Pacific could then hand over its existing line for use by commuter trains, Brown suggested. Without having to share the tracks with freight cars, the trains could speed passengers between San Antonio and Austin and perhaps as far north as Taylor, stopping in cities such as New\u00a0Braunfels and San Marcos along the way.<\/p>\n The idea isn\u2019t new. It was the plan pursued by a prior effort for commuter rail known as the Lone Star Rail District. Launched in 2003, it met with some success, securing a memorandum of understanding and deal points with Union Pacific, with the company agreeing to consider relocating its freight line. But it floundered in 2016, when a Union Pacific executive declared that the goal of increasing passenger service was \u201cunattainable.\u201d<\/p>\n The argument for an alternate freight route is \u201ceven stronger today\u201d than it was during the Lone Star Rail District\u2019s push, Brown said.<\/p>\n \u201cEven though TxDOT is expanding I-35, that\u2019s not going to cut it for these two fast-growing areas to become a mega-region,\u201d he said. Establishing rail service \u201cis more expensive today than it was when Lone Star Rail first looked at this. That\u2019s my argument, is that we need to do this now, otherwise it\u2019s just going to get more and more expensive, and we\u2019re going to end up with people who can\u2019t get back and forth between Taylor, Austin and San Antonio quickly enough.\u201d<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n The Travis County Commissioners Court commissioned the study in October of last year, at a cost of $125,000.<\/p>\n Difficulties presented by report<\/p>\n As of now, those commuting along the I-35 corridor have few options apart from getting behind the wheel. Amtrak\u2019s Texas Eagle service linking San Antonio and Austin, which shares Union Pacific\u2019s line, is not an option for most commuters.<\/p>\n The northbound Texas Eagle departs San Antonio at 6:48 a.m., while the southbound train arrives at 10:46 p.m.\u00a0\u2014 hardly ideal times for someone commuting to work or making a one-day business trip to Austin.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n ALSO READ: VIA board mulls bus fare increase as costs escalate for planned rapid lines<\/a><\/p>\n In the Travis County study, a path was sought keeping the rail line within the public right-of-way as much as possible. It would be mostly contained within the existing medians of Texas 130 and I-10. The state owns Texas 130, with a private company, SH 130 Concession Company, operating the highway under a 50-year agreement with the state.<\/p>\n The proposed route would be about 90 miles long, depending on its end points in San Antonio and Austin. If trains capable of a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour were run on the line, they could zoom between the two cities in travel times ranging from 55 minutes to an hour and five minutes, the study found.<\/p>\n One problem with the proposed route is where the trains would arrive in San Antonio and Austin. The study proposes an Austin terminus at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, seven miles east of downtown Austin \u2014 meaning that commuters headed downtown would have to find another form of transportation there.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n A terminus in downtown San Antonio would be difficult because of a lack of right-of-way and sharp curves around the I-10 and I-37 interchange, the study notes.<\/p>\n The study presents two feasible landing points in San Antonio: at Roosevelt Avenue on the South Side, or at the East Side\u2019s Frost Bank Center.<\/p>\n The study finds that the new line would require an operations and maintenance facility costing an estimated $300 million, and commuter trains costing $360 million. The new passenger line would cost between $140 million and $190 million per year to operate.<\/p>\n While he called the study \u201cencouraging,\u201d Brown said the ideal situation would be for a passenger route \u201cthat goes through all these downtowns, from Taylor to Austin to New Braunfels to San Antonio.\u201d<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Getting freight away from the cities<\/p>\n Diverting Union Pacific\u2019s freight route would have the benefit of keeping freight trains, which sometimes carry hazardous chemicals, out of densely-populated areas, Brown said, pointing to the derailment of a Union Pacific train in downtown Austin last month. A report from the Federal Railroad Administration found that 12 of the train\u2019s cars were carrying hazardous materials, though none of those cars derailed, according to the Austin American-Statesman<\/a>.<\/p>\n The derailment occurred where the rail track curves sharply after crossing Austin\u2019s Colorado River. A straighter, more level route would be better for Union Pacific, Brown said. \u201cI would like to work with them to get that,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Yet Union Pacific has made no indication that it\u2019s interested in either sharing its existing rail track or moving its freight traffic elsewhere. In 2024, after Brown and Bexar County Judge Peter Sakai launched the latest campaign for better passenger rail between San Antonio and Austin, a Union Pacific executive sent Brown a letter saying new passenger service \u201cwould likely put freight back on I-35\u00a0\u2014 increasing gridlock, accidents and greenhouse gas emissions.\u201d<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n ALSO READ: Two new roadways planned for the South Side. Here\u2019s what to know.<\/a><\/p>\n The company didn\u2019t respond to a request for comment for this story.<\/p>\n Union Pacific\u2019s line serves as a crucial link in the U.S. supply chain, ferrying produce and manufactured goods north from the booming Port of Laredo on the U.S.-Mexico border.<\/p>\n Several large businesses have located along Union Pacific\u2019s line so as to use its freight capacity, including cement plants and quarries. Their presence would likely increase Union Pacific\u2019s reluctance to give up the line.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Brown\u2019s hope is that Union Pacific would \u201ccome to the table\u201d if TxDOT lent its support to a proposal and federal funding was lined up. He said there is a fresh opportunity for federal funding after the Federal Railroad Administration last year withdrew more than $3 billion for\u00a0intercity rail from the California High Speed Rail Authority, making it available<\/a> to other recipients.<\/p>\n Interest at state level<\/p>\n TxDOT has recently shown increasing interest in the possibility of boosting commuter rail service in the San Antonio-Austin corridor. This year, the agency commissioned its own study<\/a> which concluded that passenger trains could make up to eight round trips between the two cities each day on Union Pacific\u2019s existing line, without hampering freight traffic. Certain improvements would be needed, such as the construction of side-tracks onto which slower trains could pull over to let faster trains pass by.<\/p>\n Those improvements would cost an estimated $810 million to $1.9 billion, according to the study.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Caroline Mays, who manages the agency\u2019s rail division as its senior director of planning and modal programs,\u00a0gave a presentation<\/a> last fall at a conference of the Rail Passengers Association in downtown San Antonio. She described how Texas\u2019s passenger rail network has withered over the past century and posed the question, \u201cHow can we re-rail Texas?\u201d<\/p>\n ALSO READ: TxDOT to rebuild ramps along Loop 410 and U.S. 281. Here\u2019s what to know.<\/a><\/p>\n