<\/p>\n
Trains sit at the Union Pacific East train yard located just outside of Downtown San Antonio. We need to examine our processes see whether they make it needlessly difficult to build the things the public wants, Joseph El Habr writes.<\/p>\n
Christopher Lee Staff Photographer<\/p>\n
Recently, two studies were released on passenger rail between Austin and San Antonio.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Texas Department of Transportation\u00a0studied additional service<\/a> on the existing Union Pacific freight corridor, while Travis County examined an alignment<\/a> largely within the right-of-way of Texas 130 and Interstate 10.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Central Texas has studied Austin-San Antonio passenger rail for decades, with little to show for it.<\/p>\n The problem is that we have never built a governmental process designed to actually deliver one.<\/p>\n Have you ever asked yourself, \u201cWhy can\u2019t we just do big things anymore?\u201d Passenger rail in Central Texas is a case study in the answer: A layer cake of bureaucracy where responsibility is spread across governments, agencies and funding programs, leaving the average citizen unsure where to direct their ire.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n At the top of the bureaucratic cake is the federal government. Highways and airports have established funding systems that routinely move money where it needs to go.<\/p>\n The Federal Highway Administration sends states billions of dollars through formula-based programs, meaning states can count on a predetermined share each year rather than competing for every dollar. The\u00a0Federal Aviation Administration similarly provides airports with predictable formula-based funding, supplemented by competitive grants. There are rules, processes and, imperatively, certainty.<\/p>\n Passenger rail has a federal agency too, the Federal Railroad Administration, but not an equivalent funding machine.<\/p>\n RELATED: Hey, Greg Abbott, make passenger rail between Austin and San Antonio a reality<\/a><\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n There is no dependable formula-based federal funding Texas can expect each year for\u00a0intercity passenger rail. Instead, states and local governments largely compete for competitive grants whose availability and funding levels can change with Congress and each presidential administration.<\/p>\n Then comes the state. The State Highway Fund and major revenue streams such as Propositions 1 and 7 are\u00a0TxDOT\u2019s major funding sources, and all are statutorily restricted to roadways. Billions can predictably flow toward highways, while passenger rail scavenges for pennies.<\/p>\n Further, our current system requires active state cooperation to get passenger rail chugging.<\/p>\n That\u2019s a problem when passenger rail has become politicized, and Texas leaders have shown little appetite for making it a priority. A viable project therefore requires immense regional will, local technical knowledge, a willing state partner and a stable funding source all at once.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Compare that with Interstate 35 through San Antonio, where\u00a0TxDOT\u2019s gargantuan Northeast Expansion program<\/a> is widening roughly 20 miles of the corridor. TxDOT is able to advance a multibillion-dollar expansion through an established process using dedicated state and federal highway dollars. It has an agency, a funding pipeline, decades of institutional knowledge and a prescribed path from planning to construction.<\/p>\n TxDOT can move forward with a thinly veiled, preordained project because the money and process are already there. The path, or rather, highway of least resistance is already paved.<\/p>\n