WASHINGTON — Union Pacific has asked the Surface Transportation Board to disallow some of the material Metra included in its latest filing in its request for trackage rights on UP lines in the Chicago area, saying Metra’s rebuttal included impermissible new evidence.
The Metra filing on Monday, June 23, included a proposal for an interim contract governing its operations on three UP lines until either the two sides reach a contract, or a board ruling addresses terms [see “Metra seeks to temporarily maintain status quo …,” Trains News Wire, June 25, 2025]. That filing also included a statement from a Metra consultant addressing UP’s proposed terms, part of the freight railroad’s argument filed earlier this month [see “Union Pacific urges STB to turn down Metra bid …,” News Wire, June 5, 2025].
But in a “motion to strike” filed June 25, 202), UP argues that the proposal of interim terms, and some of the rebuttal of UP’s proposal, is not permissible under due process, because it constitutes new evidence to which UP does not have an opportunity to respond.
Metra, not suprisingly, disagrees in a reply filed on June 26.
Specifically, UP argues that a report from Metra consultant Robert Mulholland included calculations on what is known as the “SSW compensation formula,” based on a prior case involving the St. Louis Southwestern Railroad. “While Mr. Mulholland’s statement responding to [UP expert Julie Carey] is permissible (albeit unpersuasive) rebuttal evidence,” the UP filing argues, “it is classic ‘sandbagging’ for Metra to introduce SSW calculations on rebuttal.”
Also, UP says, the Metra proposal for interim contract terms improperly alters its initial contention that it was not presently asking the STB to address compensation for use of the UP lines. “[T]o support its new request for interim relief, Metra is providing evidence and argument for the first time on rebuttal,” UP argues. (Metra says its proposed interim terms would essentially maintain the status quo; as an aside, UP disputes that claim.)
As part of its rebuttal, Metra also introduced contract information from its ongoing court case over the dispute with UP [see “Lawsuit says UP seeks …,” News Wire, May 28, 2025]. By introducing such materials in the board proceeding at this point, Metra deprives “Union Pacific from providing and the Board from receiving briefing on the appropriateness of those terms,” the freight railroad argues.
“For the reasons explained herein,” UP concludes in the 27-page filing, “the impermissible evidence detailed in this motion should be striken from the record and the Board should not rely on any such evidence in its resolution of this proceeding.”
In its relatively brief (four-page) reply filed Thursday, Metra urges the board to deny UP’s motion, arguing there was nothing improper or impermissible about the material in its rebuttal filing.
“On the contrary, Metra addressed on opening the five statutory elements for obtaining terminal trackage rights,” Metra said in its reply, adding that it “cannot be expected to have anticipated” that UP would argue for its new rates “when the express statutory language properly defers determination of the conditions and compensation to apply between the parties until after the Board determines whether to grant trackage rights in the first place. … UP may disagree that Metra’s evidence is persuasive, but UP is correct that it is permissible rebuttal evidence.”
The commuter agency similarly disagrees that its proposal for interim contract terms represents a modification of its initial argument: “Metra could not have anticipated that UP, in favor of an interim resolution, would alter its prior position that final compensation had to be decided and paid before usage could commence, which … allowed no room for Metra’s service to continue without disruption after June 30, 2025.”
Metra initiated the request for trackage rights in March, saying that it was seeking to ensure it was not blocked from using Union Pacific’s lines during what has proven to be a highly contentious effort to reach a new contract [see “Metra asks STB to require …,” Trains News Wire, March 7, 2025].
Separately, Union Pacific has argued that the entire case should be dismissed because Metra’s “essential character” as an intrastate, rather than interstate, operation means the dispute is not a matter for federal regulators [see “Union Pacific asks regulators to dismiss …,” News Wire, May 23, 2025]. That motion to dismiss is pending; the board could act on it separately or simply address it in its final decision.
— Updated June 26 at 5:35 p.m. CT with Metra reply to UP motion to strike.
If Tammy Duckworthless and Big Dick Durbin were doing their jobs, we would have a national transportation policy that provided dedicated, predictable, balanced, and reliable funding for passenger and freight. Then Metra wouldn’t have to be using UPs tracks that UP pays taxes on. What we definitely don’t need is corupt lifetime mobsters with such low morality we call them politicians making phone calls and selling their services to the highest bidder.
What? You don’t want Tommy Twoknuckles flying into Omaha to help with the negotiations?
What a crock, UP can submit rates from around the US, but Metra isn’t allowed to submit a possibly more accurate formula to calculate a rate from?
This is what happens when negotiation between 2 private parties occurs in a regulatory space. Instead of proceeding in an orderly fashion, it turns into a “what she said,…..NO WHAT HE SAID” argument.
I think its time for Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to make a few few phone calls. Either some hedge fund is pulling the strings for a top dollar deal or someone at UP is grandstanding.
And I thought the negotiations between CSX and Amtrak for the Mobile Alabama Amtrak upgrades were over the top. These guys are just about to out do them.