AUSTIN, Texas — Officials in Travis County have approved a contract for a feasibility study of a commuter rail operation between Austin and San Antonio, Texas.
At a meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025, the Travis County Commissioners Court unanimously approved a $124,953.50 contract with consultant HNTB Corp. for a “high-level engineering feasibility study” for a route following State Highway 130 and Interstate Highway 10. [Documents related to the contract begin on page 496 of this meeting agenda packet.] The contract calls for HNTB to identify the route, potential station locations, and estimates of costs for construction, operation, and maintenance, and is to be completed with 175 days of the company’s receipt of a “notice to proceed” from the county.
The county’s department of Transportation and Natural Resources recommended HNTB as the most qualified entity to conduct the study because it is already working with the state on a study of the I-10 corridor.
KXAN-TV reports that Judge Andy Brown, who heads the Commissioners Court, said he was “excited” about the study. “If we can squeeze a passenger rail route in the right of way that does not involve taking a lot of private land, I think that makes the possibility of getting rail between Austin … down to Bexar County much more realistic and potentially much quicker.”
On its surface, this seems like a bad idea. Skipping San Marco, Kyle, Buda and New Braunfels, as well as Austin and San Antonio suburbs, leaves out an estimated combined population of approximately 256,000.
I live in Georgetown, TX, which is approximately 28 miles north of Austin. It is along the I-35 corridor. The population density from Georgetown to Austin is as dense as that from Austin to San Antonio.
The most sensible solution would be to upgrade the UP’s line from at least Round Rock, which is contiguous with Georgetown, to San Antonio. It could serve all of the intermediate communities.
The reason Lone Star Rail Line did not fly, which was an earlier proposal for implementing commuter rail service between Austin and San Antonio, I believe, is because the proponents did not offer UP enough incentive to double or triple the existing right-of-way. UP is a business. Put enough money on the table, and they are likely to come around.
I am a resident in the area and drive 10 & 130 (fun road at a legal 85 MPH). The plan on 130 is way east of the city, so if I am going to visit folks in north Austin, that means Uber or a rent car. Same thing down in SA. Even paralleling 10, eventually they will have to stop as the costs to buy right of way will become absurd as you head into the city from Seguin. Now maybe you could force your way onto the old SP mainline at Seguin and that would at least get you into the south-central part of SA without too much new build but now you fight the problem that Texas just is not a bus and walk kind of area to get around in. It’s too hot in the summer and things are too spread out otherwise. How are you going to get to 6 flags or SeaWorld from downtown unless they run a fleet a shuttles.
So could they build something? Yeah. Will I vote for it a resident and taxpayer? I am highly skeptical.
Taking a quick look at this route on Google, building along I-10 could be tricky. Construction makes it hard to tell, but there doesn’t seem to be space between the main lanes, or between the frontage roads and lanes, for a new track. On the other hand, the median between the lanes of SR 130 is about 120-130′ wide based on some random spot checks. That’s enough space for two tracks and clear zone on either side. Getting into Austin could be a challenge since SR 130 cuts around the east side, but it does get within 3 miles of the airport.
From the article it sounds like there is some proposal to rebuild I-10 under the design of HNTB (which variously stands for How Not To Build or else Have No Traffic Background — no, seriously, HNTB is the top end engineering firm in America – everything I’ve ever seen out of HNTB is 100% perfect engineering).
Having a rail r/w in a freeway median (of SR 130 and/or a rebuilt I-10) kind of defeats the purpose of the tracks serving the communities. As I posted below I’ve never been in Texas, Daniel. I had to dial up Google Maps even to find Austin, let alone be familiar with it. Let’s look at Google Maps. Going north on SR 130, the freeway comes into a system interchange south of Austin and from there it’s all urban development into the city center.
The smells of a project which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars per mile in the rural areas, at least a billion dollars per mile once inside of Austin’s south side, and at least three or four billion dollars per mile into the city center.
Good luck finding that kind of money. Passenger trains in USA don’t cover their day-to-day O&M; usually nowhere close. Capital recovery is entirely off budget.
These politicians can vote for whatever vaporware they want to vote for, but they can never find this kind of capital outlay.
Help me out, people, as I have never been to Texas. Is this proposal for a new r/w, as opposed to an existing track?
Yes. This route would run seven to ten miles Southeast of the current Union Pacific routes. It would miss current growing population centers like New braunfels, San Marcos, Kyle & Buda but probably generate growth along a new area thru Seguin & Lockwood. UP serves numerous cement and rock mines Northeast of San Antonio and has stated it has no interest in additional passenger movements.