STB Seeks More Details on Proposed Maverick County, Tex., Line
GER, a subsidiary of Puerto Verde Holdings (PVH), in 2023 filed a petition for exemption with the STB, which is now assessing the project.
According to GER, rail traffic moving across the border between the City of Eagle Pass and Piedras Negras, Coahuila, Mexico currently crosses the UP International Railroad Bridge, a single-tracked bridge connecting to a rail line owned and operated by UP and utilized by BNSF via trackage rights on the U.S. side and to a rail line owned by the Mexican federal government with rail operations concessioned to Ferrocarril Mexicano, S.A. de C.V. (Ferromex) on the Mexican side. “GER argues that in addition to security issues at the crossing, the existing infrastructure is not well-suited for an increase in use projected by the Texas Department of Transportation in its 2021 Texas-Mexico Border Transportation Master Plan (BTMP), as the single-tracked border crossing limits train speeds and freight capacity and prevents simultaneous two-way operations, thus negatively impacting the U.S. economy,” STB summarized in its Jan. 30 decision (download below). “GER explains that the Line is part of PVH’s Puerto Verde Global Trade Bridge project (Project), a proposal that seeks to ‘develop an economically viable solution to meet the needs for border infrastructure improvements that will increase safety and facilitate crucial binational trade between the United States and Mexico.’ (Id. at 1-2.) The Project would create a new trade corridor for freight traffic and commercial motor vehicles (CMV) extending from the City of Eagle Pass, Tex., across the U.S.-Mexico border and approximately 17.79 miles into the Mexican State of Coahuila. (Id.) In addition to the Line, other components of the Project corridor include a new GER line in Mexico connecting to Ferromex at the Ferromex Rio Escondido Yard, a new CMV roadway running parallel to the railroad tracks in the U.S. and Mexico, a new bridge crossing the Rio Grande River with two spans to carry the railroad tracks and CMV roadway, and customs inspections facilities, including a customs control tower between the Line and CMV roadway to allow for combined multimodal cargo inspection. (Id. at 1-2, 6.) GER states that it has discussed the Project with UP and BNSF and seeks to enter into agreements with the carriers to shift their cross-border traffic to the Line. (Id. at 7.) Regarding the discussions, GER notes that it ‘has been pleased with the reception its proposal has received from both railroads.’ (Id.) GER has also maintained that ‘[i]f GER is unable to attract all cross border rail traffic through the prospect of a more efficient and safer cross border trade corridor, then the stated purpose of an economically viable solution to the problems that exist at Eagle Pass/Piedras Negras border is not feasible, and GER would be unable to construct and/or operate the Proposed Line.’ (Env’t Comment EI 34039, GER Letter 5.) GER argues that its proposed line qualifies for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 10502 because an application for construction and operation authority under 49 U.S.C. § 10901 is not necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy (RTP) at 49 U.S.C. § 10101, requiring an application is not necessary to protect shippers from an abuse of market power, and the project is limited in scope. (Pet. 11-17.) GER asserts that an exemption would promote several provisions of the RTP. (Id. at 13-16.).”
UP on Aug. 25, 2025, filed comments with the STB opposing GER’s petition for exemption, arguing that the Board should deny it and require a full application if GER wants to proceed with its proposal. UP stated that it “has no intent to discontinue using its border crossing at Eagle Pass”; it also questioned the project’s financial and operational viability in the event both crossings are used, and disputed that the petition shows that the line serves the public interest or meets the criteria for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 10502. “UP argues that GER simply seeks to insert itself as an additional rail carrier in the middle of existing UP-Ferromex and BNSF-Ferromex cross-border routes, rather than creating a new, competitive, more efficient option for shippers,” the STB said in its decision. “According to UP, this proposal ‘would raise rail transportation costs and reduce service quality’ because every cross-border movement with GER would require three rail carriers rather than two, thereby weakening UP’s and BNSF’s ability to compete with Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited’s cross-border operations in Laredo, Tex.”
For the STB to assess the proposed line under the exemption criteria at 49 U.S.C. § 10502, it reported needing more details. For example, it said “more information is needed to assess the impact of any potential decommissioning of the rail line in Mexico connecting Ferromex to the UP International Railroad Bridge at Eagle Pass, which can currently be used by shippers to interchange directly with either UP or BNSF, and whether any such decommissioning would result in GER’s proposed Line becoming a single rail carrier option (i.e., an added, intermediate carrier without a rail alternative) for traffic moving between the United States and Mexico at Eagle Pass, and to assess how the Project might be impacted in the event GER is unable to attract all traffic over its Line.” The STB has directed GER to file a supplemental brief addressing the following four issues:
- “1. Please discuss the effect on rail shippers if all rail traffic currently crossing the border at Eagle Pass shifts to GER and explain how GER would address any competitive or operational harms to shippers that may arise as a result. Please describe what impact this transaction, including the cost of the proposed line and the addition of an intermediate carrier, would have on shipping costs.
- “2. Please provide the Board with a description of the current physical track on the Mexican side of the border connecting Ferromex to the UP International Railroad Bridge at Eagle Pass and the proposed GER track on the Mexican side, including clarifying the extent to which this proposed segment would be double tracked. The Board encourages the submission of any relevant maps not already submitted to the agency. Please include any information you have regarding any planned rerouting of rail traffic and whether any existing track in Mexico would be removed or decommissioned following construction of the Line.
- “3. Please inform the Board about the status of any negotiations or discussions being had with UP and with BNSF, including regarding any operating plan or similar arrangement.
- “4. Please elaborate on your representation that ‘GER would be unable to construct and/or operate the proposed line’ if you are ‘unable to attract all cross border rail traffic.’ (Env’t Comment EI 34039, GER Letter 5.) Please explain how you plan to attract or secure all cross-border traffic and confirm whether you would start building the Line in the absence of commitments from UP and BNSF to shift their traffic to the Line postconstruction. If you would start building the Line in the absence of those commitments, explain why and what would be sufficient for you to start building.”
The STB also invited UP and BNSF to comment on items one through three, and directed them to clarify where their respective crew changes currently take place. “GER states that crew changes occur on the current UP bridge, (see Pet. 6), but UP notes that it expected to shift cross-border crew changes from the bridge to Clark’s Park Yard in 2025, (UP Comment 3, 14),” the STB said in its decision.
GER must serve a copy of the STB decision on BNSF by Feb. 3, 2026, and supplemental briefs addressing the issues STB outlined are due Feb. 13, 2026.
