New Try for Austin – San Antonio Train Building Up Steam
Advocates Want Planning Resumed for Proposed Service Canceled by Union Pacific
Nearly eight years after a 19-year effort to launch commuter rail service between Austin and San Antonio, TX, failed rail advocates and public officials may be trying anew. The cities anchor two of the fastest-growing U.S. metropolitan areas, which are converging to form a megalopolis. Their combined population stands at 5.2 million but is expected to grow to 8.3 million by 2050, according to “Texas Tribune” magazine.
Austin and San Antonio are 80 miles apart, roughly the same distance separating Chicago and Milwaukee. Amtrak operates frequent, fast, and reliable passenger trains between those Midwestern cities but the only train between Texas’ second and fourth largest cities is the “Texas Eagle,” a long-distance run from Chicago that is slow and frequently late.
There is no air service and limited bus service between San Antonio and Austin, which have populations approaching 1.5 million and one million, respectively. Almost everyone drives Interstate 35, which cannot keep up with demand.
I-35 has become increasingly congested and dangerous. The section through downtown Austin is now the third most congested roadway in the state. In 2022 there were 73 fatal accidents on the route Bexar and Williamson Counties, according to Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) data. TxDOT want to make I-35 even wider, especially in Austin where a critical section of the highway with upper and lower roadways near the University of Texas is obsolete.
Between 2003 and 2016 Lone Star had spent $25 million with nothing to show besides enriched consultants. The experience left elected leaders with a bad taste, and they have avoided discussing the “R word” ever since.
Plans call for as many as 22 lanes at critical locations. However, adding lanes to a highway induces more driving. It encourages development that generates more traffic so congestion never goes away.
Local and state leaders long recognized the problem. In the 1990s they sought to add rail service to lessen highway use. The Texas legislation passed and then Gov. George W. Bush signed a bill that authorized establishment of what would become the Lone Star Rail District.
The District’s mission was to plan, fund, and build a regional passenger line from San Antonio to San Antonio via downtown Austin. However, the project was abandoned in 2016 after the Union Pacific Railroad broke off discussions regarding use of its tracks. The metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) for Travis and Bexar Counties stopped funding the project soon after.
Between 2003 and 2016 Lone Star had spent $25 million with nothing to show besides enriched consultants. The experience left elected leaders with a bad taste, and they have avoided discussing the “R word” ever since. “Over and over again, we’ve gotten burned on rail, and I think people are over it,” said San Antonio City Council Member Melissa Cabello Havrda.
However, due to the growing congestion on I-35, rail could get a second look. A new advocacy group that wants the Lone Star District resuscitated is gaining traction. In Texas, a politically conservative, auto-centric state, they have a long and difficult path before them.
In planning for the latest I-35 expansion TxDOT kept rail out of consideration. The project’s final environmental impact statement, issued last year, states rail would not “create a dependable and consistent route for transit, emergency responders, and other motorists.” The agency previously negated a proposal to include space for rail in the right of way of state Highway 130, a new toll road that runs parallel to I-35.
“As we add so many people to our region, the transportation problem is getting undeniably worse,” said Clay Anderson, founder of the advocacy group Restart Lone Star Rail District. He is working to build a coalition to support a “fast, frequent, and reliable passenger route between San Antonio and Georgetown, 30 miles north of Austin. “People who do not use public transportation in their regular lives would consider using it because of how difficult the drive is between the two cities,” he added.
A transportation modeling analysis conducted by Christian Budow, a Columbia University graduate student, estimates four million people a year would use the service. They would travel not only for business or employment but also to attend sporting, music, and cultural events.
But strong demand doesn’t always get a new rail line being built. Robert C. Andrews Jr., a Temple University graduate student wrote a case study analysis of the Lone Star Rail District’s failure. He pointed out that several criteria must be met to successfully establish a new passenger rail line.
· “A clear and identifiable political champion;
· Adequate funding;
· Competent project management;
· A clear project design and budget;
· A cooperating Class-1 freight railroad partner;
· Adequate property ownership or right-of-way access; and
· An economically competitive alternative to automated highway vehicle technology.”
The Lone Star District did not have any of these. While UP’s decision to end talks triggered the agency’s end several other factors contributed to its demise.
With the Highway 130 right of way no longer available to rail, the only viable route is the Union Pacific mainline, a mostly single-track line that hosts heavy freight traffic. Other routes would require costly land acquisition. But UP doesn’t want passenger trains interfering with its freight trains, which is why it ended talks with Lone Star in 2016.
Restart’s Anderson believes the railroad’s receptivity could be changing. For starters, Lance Fritz, the CEO who killed the Lone Star project, no longer holds that position. In a phone conversation, Cliff Schelbitzki, assistant vice president for public affairs, told Anderson UP is open to considering new proposals. “If the MPOs want to go forward with something we always look at new plans as new plans, not as things from six or seven years ago.”
Bexar County Judge Peter Sakai is receptive to regional rail deserves a fresh look. “If rail is the best and most economic use of our money we need to go there especially as we try to connect with the city of Austin and all the communities in between,” he said. In Texas county court judges have an executive role in county government by virtue of service as presiding supervisor for the commissioners court.
Judge Sakai would like to take advantage of federal funding made available under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. But Bexar and Travis Counties are getting out of the gate late. They could not submit a proposal for grant money appropriated for FY2022 because they lacked an active planning effort. Five other Texas-related projects received funding from the Federal Railroad Administration’s Corridor Identification and Development program.
Even if UP were to say yes to a commuter line supporters would need to line up substantial financing - $4 billion by one estimate. The rail line would have to be double tracked with a third track in critical locations, such as at the large cement plants along the route. It would need to smoothly operate UP’s freight traffic plus passenger trains every 30 minutes or less. Locations for stations would need to be identified and land for parking lots will have to be acquired.
While the UP route is relatively straight and doesn’t have steep grades, some locations slow traffic and create congestion. For example, the single-track bridge over Lady Bird Lake in Austin will have to be replaced to avoid becoming a bottleneck. This takes big bucks and the Texas legislature doesn’t readily dole it out, especially if they could be on the hook for future deficits.
As Austin, San Antonio, and their suburbs continue to grow their highways will reach saturation. The region cannot rely solely on more and wider roads to solve its traffic problem. Rail will have to be part of the solution whether local and state officials like it or not.
To the list of needs to bring rail service, assuming the potential users are not hardened commuters already, ( which would be the case here): safe stations, safe connecting transit and a safe journey.