The issue was prompted by the merger last year between Amtrak and Chicago Union Station Co., which had been an Amtrak subsidiary and which was Metra’s nominal landlord.
Allowing Amtrak “through a corporate maneuver to evade the board’s commuter rail service-protective mechanisms would be counter to Congressional intent and public policy and an abdication of the board’s responsibilities,” Metra contends in a filing.
In an April 6 filing with the STB, attorneys for Metra asked the regulator to declare that the board, under federal law, retains jurisdiction over the station, as had been the case under the lease with the station company and that the board has authority to prescribe terms for Metra’s use of the station.
Amtrak is exempted by law from most STB economic regulation, but the station company was not, according to the 66-page filing.
Specifically, Metra wants the STB to retain the authority to mediate if Metra and Amtrak reach an impasse in negotiations over a new lease.
Since 1984, Metra has been the prime tenant in Union Station and its current lease expires April 30, 2019.
Metra will pay $9.7 million under its lease this year, spokesman Michael Gillis tells Trains News Wire, but Metra declined to comment further on the lease or the filing.
Amtrak representative Marc Magliari says Amtrak does not comment on pending litigation and will respond to the STB regarding this filing.
Metra called Union Station “the backbone” of its commuter rail service, “and access to the station is essential to Metra, its customers, and to efficient transportation in the greater Chicagoland area.”
Union is the most significant of Metra’s several stations in downtown Chicago, hosting roughly 41 percent of Metra’s passengers traveling to and from the downtown area, the filing noted. An average of approximately 109,520 passengers ride 286 weekly Metra trains on six separate routes to and from Union Station.
In the filing, Metra said it had been preparing for discussions with the station company over the new lease, but was surprised to learn that company had officially merged with its parent, Amtrak, last year.
Metra said it is “assessing what options, including the invocation of board procedures and remedies, would be available should negotiations with Amtrak concerning access terms for the [Union Station] facilities not progress as well as is hoped.”
Metra contends that both parties’ negotiation positions and bargaining leverage will be affected by whether the board has jurisdiction, should future circumstances warrant, involving mediation and trackage rights for Metra’s use of the station.
The two relevant sections of the law are 49 United States Code section 28502 and 11102, according to the filing.
Metra says it is concerned that Amtrak might contend that the merger has removed Union Station from the reach of sections 11102 and 28502, “thus depriving Metra of alternative paths to preserve access to the [Union Station] facilities, should it ever come to that.”
Metra wrote to Amtrak on Jan. 4, seeking confirmation from Amtrak that the protections extended to Metra under 11102 and 28502 remain applicable to the station.
In a Jan. 25 letter included in the filing, Amtrak responded that, while Amtrak would “be responsible for the facilities and obligations of [the station company] that existed at the time of the merger, Amtrak nevertheless “does not believe” that sections 11102 and 28502 are applicable.
Thus, Metra contends: “There plainly is disagreement (and therefore a controversy) between Metra and Amtrak over whether the [Union Station] properties formerly owned by [the station company] are subject to the commuter rail protections of Sections 11102 and 28502.”
In addition: “Whether or not the board has jurisdiction to administer provisions protective of commuter rail service in the event of an impasse will inform how negotiations proceed on both sides going forward.”
Metra’s filing says the outcome of the issue would also have a bearing on the use of Washington’s Union Station by two commuter rail agencies, Virginia Railway Express and MARC Commuter Train Service.
Metra is requesting that the board institute a proceeding in accordance with a timetable to and to provide for input for other potentially interested parties.
Mr. Landey, another thing. The Panhandle passenger trains did not use that route into Union Station. They ran on the cutoff from Bernice to Colehour Jct. and entered and departed on the Fort Wayne side.
ROBERT McGUIRE – I see you point although we both know you’re overstating it. Metra ain’t going to build a new station. The land and the shekels don’t exist, either one, nor will they ever exist. The obvious point is, as you say, it never ends well when public agencies feud and jockey for position. I had a long and successful career seeing how public utilities (electric, etc.) and governmental agencies (highways, etc.) work with, not against, each other. In different jobs, I saw the process from each of the two ends, the highway end and the public utility end, and at different times I was on both sides of the permitting process. (Railroads were notably difficult and more territorial, compared to the utilities, I always heard, though I never had direct experience. Also, the railroads tended to stricter recovery of administrative costs, like high salaries and overhead for a trainmaster when bridge work impinged on live rail traffic.) Successful businesses (yes, government is a business) cooperate with each other. Failing bureaucracies go to battle with one another.
What will probably happen is that Metra will start studying, and eventually build, a new station in downtown Chicago. Then Amtrak will be left with that huge white elephant of a station to serve its small number of passengers and also be out the nearly$10,000,000 in revenue. One corrupt government agency fighting another corrupt government agency never ends well for the general public.
KEITH – Thanks for the correction. I did not know that. So I assume the Panhandle trains used the PRR coach yard where the AMTK coach yard now is located.
The answer to Mr. Landey’s question about the Panhandle entry into Union Station is that the predecessor of the Panhandle was granted a charter to operate in the city of Chicago in 1872 under the condition that they grant trackage rights to the Milwaukee Road predecessor from the location where the two lines junction into the city. The Panhandle owned 100% of their property. This condition existed until about 1908. For some reason, at that time, the Panhandle and Milwaukee Road split the ownership underneath the four main tracks into an undivided 50/50 ownership. That doesn’t mean that there was a line down the middle of the right of way. Each party owned 50% of the property underneath the four main tracks. That’s the undivided part. The Panhandle (PCC&St.L by this time) did retain 100% ownership of their property on either side of the four main tracks. PCC&St.L in the original agreement was responsible to maintain track, signals and bridges and dispatch the line with Milw Road paying for that based upon their percentage of use. Although I don’t know the reason for sure, it may be that with the edict to elevate their tracks, and perhaps the Milw’s need for more tracks (they expanded from two mains to four), that the PRR wanted the Milw to take more of an ownership responsibility. The agreement does not specify the reasons why this was done after more than 30 years of Panhandle 100% ownership.
The 100% PCC&St.L ownership outside of the four main tracks is why you see NS switching the ADM Flour mill in the present day. This will soon end as ADM is moving out of there in the near future per their news announcement and that is the last industry on the line.
Developments since the 1908 circa agreement are that at some undefined time the Milw Road took over the signal maintenance. There is a circa 1960’s agreement where the PRR in the agreement even states that at some unknown time the Milw Road took over the signal maintenance and here is an after the fact agreement to cover that arrangement. So even by the 1960’s the historical information on that had been lost. In 1978, Conrail made an agreement with the Milw Road for the Milw Road to take over the track maintenance with the bridge maintenance to follow. I don’t know when the PCC&ST.L/PRR gave up the dispatching responsibility. This Milw Road ownership later went to Metra when the Milw Road trustees sold their 50% undivided ownership to Metra.
As an added note, Conrail, up to a few years ago, received rental on a fiber optics line that had been installed on the property. I don’t know if the line still exists or if that rental arrangement is still in effect. After the 1999 Conrail merger, where there was any existing fiber optics on former Conrail property, either CSX or NS, it was decided to allow Conrail to continue to collect the rental money in order to provide Conrail with a small cash flow for incidentals.
On the Fort Wayne side, the tracks from the South Branch Bridge into some point were also jointly owned by the GM&O and PFW&C. I don’t know if it was another 50/50 undivided ownership or not. When the PC trustees sold their interest to Amtrak, the cut line between Amtrak and Conrail (now NS) was made just about on the south bank of the South Branch of the river.
Caveat to METRA: Amtrak previously attempted to throttle the commuter line Virginia Railway Express (VRE) over its rights at Washington Union Station.
Amtrak cannot be allowed to hammer local commuter rail lines with its monopolistic instincts to “run the table” to the detriment of the public. How Amtrak changes policy and tariff overnight to infringe on the individual business concerns of PVs cannot be tolerated to spread to the tax supported commuter lines.
This is the end result of Amtrak’s own Board failing to oversight its actions; as well, the lack of proper oversight by USDOT and Congress.
GM+O was a tenant, never an owner. Interesting (RICHARD WRONSKI) that two Pennsy subsidiaries used the station. Don’t ask me the formal names – the mainline Pennsy came in the south side of CUS (the straight shot from Fort Wayne, and later Elkhart after the PRR/NYC merger) while the “Panhandle” trains from places like Loiusville (KY) came in the north, or Milwaukee Road side. Now here’s what’s interesting: I once saw a Norfolk Southern switcher at the big grain mill along what you think would be former Milwaukee Road tracks. This apparently is a remnant of the former PRR “Panhandle” ownership and may be several miles or many miles from any other NS customer. Rail archeologists and/or Pennsy fans could trace the Panhandle Route all through Chicago but I’m not that booked up. Another very indirect route was B+O/ C+O route after Grand Central was torn down and until Amtrak trainoffs in 1971. B+O/ C+O trains followed the B+O Chicago Terminal west around the city then came in on the CNW to Northwestern Station.
The Chicago Union Station Company originally was 50% owned by Pennsy, 25% by the Milwaukee Road and 25% by CB&Q. Amtrak gradually acquired all of the pieces in order to be to make improvements and changes without having to get anyone else’s agreement.
From the filing:
CUSCo was formed on July 3, 1913, as The Union Station Company, and was re- named as Chicago Union Station Company on May 7, 1915. In its early days, 50% of CUSCo’s stock was held by two subsidiaries of The Pennsylvania Railroad Company (a Penn Central Transportation Company (“PCTC”) predecessor), while Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company (predecessor of Burlington Northern Railroad Company (“BN”)) and what became Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company (“Milwaukee Road”) held 25% apiece. CUSCo constructed, owned, and operated Chicago Union Station, including the
headhouse, concourse, station platforms and tracks and approach trackage, on behalf of its
owners and a fifth non-owner tenant. The station opened in 1925.
Amtrak gained an ownership interest in CUSCo in 1976 when Amtrak acquired PCTC’s 50% stock interest in CUSCo . Since 1984 Metra has been a tenant of CUS under an Agreement entered into between CUSCo and Metra as of May 1, 1984, and amended May 1, 1988, and July 1, 1990.
Hope this explains things.
BRIAN WESTGATE – Good question. I don’t know the answer. I can only guess. Amtrak is about 3 to 4 years older than RTA. RTA later formed Metra as a subsidiary. It could be that Amtrak already owned CUS when Metra was formed.
How’d Amtrak become sole owner of CUSCo.? Seems like METRA should be a joint owner.