We have two not great choices for something that would be really really useful if it could ever be made to happen.
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 a 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.
[…]
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.”
Various diagrams from the HNTB report show how elevated rail line, shown in orange, could be configured along SH 130 and I-10.
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.
See here, here, and here for some background. If these are the only two possibilities and the I-35 line will never happen because Union Pacific will never play ball, then I’d rather pay the money and build this than do nothing, even if the line bypasses San Marcos and New Braufels. Which is a lot to give up! And why I’m not prepared to believe that Union Pacific will forever be an immovable object. Maybe throw some of the money that’s in between these two estimates at them to do whatever is needed to upgrade their tracks so they can accommodate passenger trains, and see if that makes them budge. It just makes too much sense not to keep trying.
BE REAL: HOW MANY WOULD ACTUALLY BOARD?
As much as I am a fan of long-distance trains and urban transit systems in Europe (and satisfied user when there), this project does not make sense to me in Texas for multiple reasons:
How do you get Texans out of their cars, which is the baseline to compare a proposed alternative mode of transportation? And for long-distance trips, how do you persuade them to get on a train, rather than fly?
The passenger train option would have to be made competitive and that could only be done through high speed, which will not be worth the massive capital investment since you can’t use existing track and rolling stock. Plus: we don’t think long-term in the U.S., so a 100-year amortization period, or even a fraction, is not realistic.
But even more fundamentally, what about the would-be customers, who have other options? You have to figure in the time spent to get to the point of departure and from the arrival station to your destination. So, unless for some reason air travel is no longer available while electric power is (because the sun still shining and wind blowing), it’s not likely that there will be enough demand and passenger volume to justify the massive capital investment required up front. How could more demand be stimulated? How would you wean people from the now-existing modes travel? Not to mention that the airlines (if still in business) might fight the competition by all available (political) means.
It makes more sense to have a direct rail connection from the airport to the city center. There are plenty of existing examples to study: Vienna has a double-deck dedicated train connection to the city centre (CAT=City Airport Train), which takes you there in 16 mins for €14.90 (with a second ÖBB S7 option for €5.40, 23 minutes). Frankfurt has the S-Bahn connection, also less than 6 Euros, which takes 11 minutes to the main station and runs every 15 minutes. Both airports have underground long-distance train stations too, so you can connect directly (on foot) from the arrival gate to other major cities.
That’s not to say it’s as convenient everywhere: Although Budapest has the oldest subway in Europe (M1 opened in 1896, at least three regime-changes ago), and has been improving it ever since (including a whole city block being excavated to build an underground linkup to one of their railway stations a few years ago, the airport connection (by bus) still kinda sucks. But it’s easy to get around the city on street level (tram, city busses) and below (Metro=subway) with no picturesque city vistas but much faster.
THE LAST FEW MILES PROBLEM
A dedicated rail connection might make sense for San Antonio with its massive stream of tourists to the River Walk area hotels, and would be nice for Houston too, but the problem still remains with the last few miles (or more) in the city. Metro is just not good enough to get around, especially not with luggage. And even with backbag, the wait times are too long in the summer heat. More likely than not the future is self-driving taxis, a fleet of which will be much more flexible and efficient in meeting whatever the demand may look like in future. You can’t move the tracks; at least not quickly enough to respond to shifting demand.
I’m afraid the 130/I-10 proposal really takes San Antonio out of the discussion. It’s not just a “last few miles” problem. It’s a long haul along I-10 into San Antonio job centers, or from San Antonio suburbs to the rail. It’s not just the San Marcos and New Braunfels population centers that have been removed, you have also removed the near entirety of the San Antonio metro area. Sure, Seguin is technically part of that metro, but it is very not center. And now we get to the core of it: this is a proposal to extend bedroom communities along 130. It is a solution for Travis County’s affordability problem. There is no San Antonio or even Bexar County tax base in play. And thus support in state leg has near vanished. Travis goes it alone.
“More likely than not the future is self-driving taxis, a fleet of which will be much more flexible and efficient in meeting whatever the demand may look like in future. ”
Yes, wonk., the solution to overcrowded roads is more cars. Brilliant.
Contra Policy Wonk, there’s another option:
Like ferries in Puget Sound, across the Great Lakes, etc., have dedicated light rail with car-carrier freight cars (for suitable additional charge, of course), as well as passenger only, for those who don’t want rely on cab or Uber.
That said, for passenger-only? Having grown up out west, I suggest reading about New Mexico’s Rail Runner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_Rail_Runner_Express