Washington, D.C. – May 24, 2025 – A high-stakes dispute between Union Pacific (UP) and Chicago’s Metra commuter rail system has taken center stage, as UP urges the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to dismiss Metra’s request for trackage rights on key UP rail lines in the Chicago area. Citing jurisdictional issues, UP argues that Metra’s operations are primarily intrastate, with only minimal interstate activity, placing the matter outside the STB’s authority. This clash could have far-reaching implications for millions of daily commuters and the future of rail operations in the region.
Metra’s Push for Trackage Rights
In March 2025, Metra, the Chicago region’s commuter rail agency, filed a request with the STB to secure terminal trackage rights on Union Pacific’s North, Northwest, and West lines. These lines are vital arteries of Metra’s network, connecting downtown Chicago with suburbs like Evanston, Highland Park, Crystal Lake, and beyond. The request aims to ensure uninterrupted service for Metra’s passengers after the current operating agreement with UP expires on June 30, 2025.
Metra’s filing underscored the urgency of securing these rights, emphasizing that continued access to UP’s tracks is critical to maintaining reliable service for the millions of commuters who rely on these lines daily. The agency warned that without a new agreement or regulatory intervention, service disruptions could loom, impacting Chicago’s workforce, economy, and quality of life.
Union Pacific’s Motion to Dismiss
In a motion filed on May 24, 2025, Union Pacific countered Metra’s request, arguing that the STB lacks jurisdiction over the matter. UP contends that Metra’s operations are overwhelmingly intrastate, confined primarily to Illinois, and thus fall outside the federal oversight of the STB, which governs interstate commerce under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995.
Central to UP’s argument is the Kenosha station, Metra’s sole stop in Wisconsin, located on the UP North line. UP claims that only 0.01% of Metra’s passengers use this station, labeling it a “de minimis” amount of interstate activity that does not transform Metra into an interstate operation. The railroad further argues that even if the STB were to consider the Kenosha station as interstate, it would not extend jurisdiction to Metra’s operations on the fully intrastate Northwest and West lines.
UP’s filing also references historical precedent, noting that Metra previously argued before the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)—the STB’s predecessor—that it was exempt from ICC oversight due to its intrastate nature. This history, UP asserts, undermines Metra’s current bid for federal intervention.
A Letter of Assurance Amid Tensions
Included in UP’s filing is a May 21, 2025, letter from Union Pacific’s CEO to Metra Executive Director/CEO Jim Derwinski. The letter seeks to reassure commuters, stating, “Union Pacific will not be stopping service to the millions of people who use Metra daily.” UP argues that dismissing Metra’s STB request would not disrupt service but instead compel both parties to resume commercial negotiations to resolve the dispute over access fees.
The access fee disagreement lies at the heart of this conflict. Metra pays UP to operate its commuter trains on UP’s freight rail infrastructure, and the terms of this arrangement have been contentious. UP’s filing suggests that a negotiated solution, rather than regulatory action, is the appropriate path forward.
Why Kenosha Matters in the Dispute
The Kenosha station, located just across the Illinois-Wisconsin border, has become a focal point in this jurisdictional debate. Opened in 2000, the station serves as a critical link for commuters traveling between southeast Wisconsin and Chicago. However, UP’s claim that only 0.01% of Metra’s passengers use Kenosha underscores the railroad’s argument that this station represents a negligible portion of Metra’s operations.
Metra, however, may argue that the Kenosha station’s interstate connection is significant, as it serves a growing number of cross-border commuters. The station’s role in facilitating regional travel could bolster Metra’s case for STB jurisdiction, though UP’s “de minimis” argument aims to downplay its importance.
Impact on Chicago-Area Commuters
Metra is one of the largest commuter rail systems in the United States, serving over 70 million passengers annually across 12 lines and more than 240 stations. The UP North, Northwest, and West lines are among its busiest, carrying thousands of daily commuters to and from Chicago’s Loop. Any disruption to these lines could ripple across the region, affecting workers, businesses, and public transit-dependent communities.
For example, the UP North line serves vibrant suburbs like Wilmette and Lake Forest, while the Northwest line connects areas like Arlington Heights and Palatine to downtown Chicago. The West line, meanwhile, supports communities such as Oak Park and Elmhurst. A failure to resolve this dispute could lead to delays, fare increases, or even temporary service interruptions, placing a significant burden on commuters.
Broader Implications for U.S. Rail Systems
The Metra-UP dispute is part of a broader tension between commuter rail agencies and freight railroads, which often share infrastructure. Across the U.S., commuter systems like Metra, Caltrain in California, and SEPTA in Philadelphia rely on freight railroads’ tracks, leading to frequent negotiations over access, scheduling, and fees. The STB plays a critical role in mediating these disputes, but UP’s jurisdictional challenge raises questions about the extent of federal authority over regional rail operations.
Industry experts suggest that the outcome of this case could set a precedent for similar disputes nationwide. If the STB dismisses Metra’s request, it may encourage other freight railroads to challenge commuter agencies’ bids for regulatory relief, potentially complicating access agreements. Conversely, a ruling in Metra’s favor could strengthen commuter agencies’ ability to leverage federal oversight in negotiations.
Historical Context: Metra and UP’s Longstanding Partnership
Metra and Union Pacific have a decades-long history of collaboration, with UP operating three of Metra’s 12 lines under contract. This partnership has enabled Metra to expand its reach and provide reliable service to Chicago’s suburbs. However, disagreements over access fees and operational priorities have periodically strained the relationship.
In recent years, Metra has faced financial challenges, including declining ridership due to remote work trends and rising operational costs. These pressures may have intensified the current dispute, as Metra seeks to secure favorable terms to maintain affordable fares and reliable service.
What’s Next for Metra and Union Pacific?
The Surface Transportation Board is expected to review Union Pacific’s motion to dismiss alongside Metra’s trackage rights request in the coming months. With the June 30, 2025, contract expiration approaching, both parties face pressure to reach an agreement that ensures uninterrupted service.
In the interim, Metra and UP are likely to continue negotiations to resolve the access fee dispute. For commuters, the stakes are high: a resolution will determine whether Metra can maintain seamless operations on some of its most critical lines. Advocacy groups, including the Regional Transportation Authority, are closely monitoring the situation, urging both parties to prioritize the needs of passengers.
How Commuters Can Stay Informed
Metra has pledged to keep riders updated on the status of the dispute and any potential impacts on service. Commuters can visit metra.com for real-time service alerts, fare information, and updates on the UP lines. The Surface Transportation Board’s website, stb.gov, offers additional details on rail regulation and ongoing cases.
As this story develops, Chicago-area residents and transit advocates will be watching closely to see how this dispute shapes the future of commuter rail in the region. For now, both Metra and Union Pacific remain committed to avoiding disruptions, but the path to a resolution remains uncertain.
