Studies say Austin-San Antonio passenger rail requires $13 billion or a route Union Pacific resists
KUT 90.5 | By Nathan Bernier
Published August 20, 2026 at 5:36 PM CDT
https://www.kut.org/transportation/2026-...ail-txdot-travis-county-study-13-billion
A passenger rail link between Austin and San Antonio, long dreamed about by local officials and commuters who would rather watch YouTube than white-knuckle it between semi-trucks on I-35, is now being presented with two very different paths forward.
But the cheaper of those two paths is already running into the same obstacle that helped kill the last serious effort: Union Pacific says its freight railroad still doesn't have capacity for any more passenger trains beyond the extremely limited existing service. Amtrak's slow rolling Texas Eagle runs only once a day, and even that service arrives on schedule just 56% of the time.
The other option would build an all-new, mostly elevated railroad starting at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and following State Highway 130 to Interstate 10. That avoids Union Pacific but bypasses the biggest population centers between Austin and San Antonio. It also comes with a much heftier price tag: $13.5 billion.
The two choices are laid out in separate studies released this summer, both prepared by engineering firm HNTB. TxDOT published a study in June that considered adding passenger trains to the existing Union Pacific corridor.
This week, Travis County released the study on whether a new railroad could be built along SH 130 and I-10. The 62-page report cost almost $125,000.
At a high level, engineers found either concept could work. But the studies also exposed the tradeoffs that have prevented Austin-San Antonio passenger rail from becoming a reality, despite millions of dollars spent on studies and planning.
On paper, the Union Pacific option is more affordable. TxDOT studied running up to eight round trips a day between Austin and San Antonio, with stops in New Braunfels and San Marcos. The most ambitious scenario would require almost $1.9 billion in new tracks, signals, stations and other infrastructure. Annual operation and maintenance costs could top $61 million.
But that study came with an major limitation: Union Pacific declined to participate. So TxDOT had to make assumptions about how passenger and freight trains could use the railroad by relying on federal data and "engineering judgment."
Union Pacific is now making clear it disagrees with the premise of the study.
"Past efforts have found the existing freight corridor is not sufficient to accommodate both freight and passenger demand," Union Pacific spokesperson Robynn Tysver told KUT News on Thursday. "We believe that is still the case today and we are focused on serving our customers and taking trucks off the state's congested highways."
That response came hours after Travis County Judge Andy Brown told KUT News that his understanding from previous conversations with Union Pacific was that the railroad could be willing to negotiate again if officials found a real source of money.
Brown still called the Union Pacific route "probably more realistic in the short term" because of its lower price and its ability to serve the communities between Austin and San Antonio.
The SH 130 to I-10 option studied by Travis County avoids the need to cooperate with Union Pacific, but introduces several other problems.
HNTB estimates nearly 54 miles of the roughly 90-mile route would have to be elevated. The $13.5 billion estimate, which doesn't account for any inflation, includes a 45% cost cushion known as a "contingency."
Unlike the plan studied by TxDOT, the price tag includes $360 million for six trains, each with two locomotives and three coach cars, plus a $300 million operations and maintenance facility.
The estimate also assumes minimal highway reconstruction or land acquisition, and doesn't include interest on any potential debt.
Running the trains could cost another $140 million to $190 million each year. The Travis County study didn't forecast ridership, so it also can't say how much fare revenue could offset those costs.
Brown argues the political climate has shifted, pointing to support from county judges, TxDOT's renewed interest in passenger rail and conversations with state lawmakers and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.
But there's plenty of history for skeptics to point to. By 2016, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization had counted 24 studies looking into commuter rail between the Austin-area and San Antonio since 1997.
The Lone Star Rail effort had spent about $23 million in state and federal money before Union Pacific ended its agreement with the rail district a decade ago.
For now, one of the two paths for an Austin-San Antonio passenger rail requires Union Pacific to reverse its position. The other needs billions of dollars with no funding committed.
More background
https://www.kxan.com/traffic/transportat...enger-rail-line-viable-for-13-5-billion/
Prev
Linear Mode
