DALLAS, Texas — Spain’s national railway operator, Renfe, has formally withdrawn from the long-anticipated Texas high-speed rail project, dealing a major blow to a $40 billion infrastructure venture that has struggled for over a decade to get off the ground. The project, envisioned to connect Dallas and Houston in just 90 minutes via a 240-mile bullet train, now faces an increasingly uncertain future.
Renfe, which had signed on in 2018 to operate the route, cited ongoing delays and structural challenges as reasons for its departure. The withdrawal comes as yet another setback in a series of obstacles that have dogged the Texas Central project. Among these are persistent legal battles over land acquisition, inconsistent investment backing, and the recent rescission of a $64 million federal grant by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The DOT cited concerns about the project’s long-term financial viability and the lack of tangible progress as justification for terminating the funding agreement.
Despite these significant headwinds, Fort Worth-based investment firm Kleinheinz Capital Partners insists the project remains “shovel-ready.” The firm, which took over the reins from the original developers after years of stagnation, continues to lobby for public and private support, stressing the long-term economic and transportation benefits of a high-speed rail line in Texas.
“We remain committed to delivering a modern, fast, and safe transportation alternative for Texans,” a spokesperson for Kleinheinz Capital said in a recent statement. “This project will create thousands of jobs and reduce congestion on I-45, one of the most heavily traveled highways in the state.”
The Texas Central Railway project was once touted as a model for public-private infrastructure partnerships. Inspired by Japan’s Shinkansen technology, the train was to operate at speeds of up to 205 mph, drastically reducing travel time between two of Texas’s largest metropolitan areas. Yet since its inception, the project has been mired in political opposition, funding gaps, and community resistance — particularly from landowners along the proposed route who object to eminent domain claims.
The estimated cost of the rail line has ballooned from an initial projection of $10 billion to over $40 billion. Critics have pointed to this escalation as evidence of poor planning and an unrealistic financial model. With Renfe’s departure and Amtrak also winding down its involvement, some transportation analysts suggest the project may need to be restructured entirely or scaled back to become viable.
At the same time, other high-speed rail initiatives in Texas are inching forward. A regional line between Fort Worth and Dallas, spearheaded by the North Central Texas Council of Governments, is currently in its early development stages. This project is seen as a more achievable goal in the short term due to its shorter distance and existing transportation corridors.
High-speed rail remains a contentious topic in Texas politics, with advocates citing environmental, economic, and logistical advantages, while opponents argue that the state’s car-centric culture and geography make such projects impractical. The 2025 legislative session may see renewed debate over the use of eminent domain for transportation infrastructure, which could further affect the future of high-speed rail in the state.
Spain’s Renfe had hoped to leverage the Texas project to expand its international portfolio, anticipating over $5 billion in long-term revenue from operations and maintenance contracts. Its decision to exit follows a broader reevaluation of foreign infrastructure investments, particularly amid shifting U.S. political dynamics and the Trump administration’s rollback of support for the project earlier this year.
As Texas Central’s developers reassess their path forward, the fate of America’s first true high-speed rail corridor outside of the Northeast remains in flux. Supporters argue the project is too important to abandon, citing long-term mobility, economic development, and carbon reduction goals. However, without a major infusion of funding and a resolution to legal challenges, its future remains highly precarious.
