Ford's Train Station

[Richard]

They would have a reason,for the same reason I mentioned Brightlines plan,you do not need high ridership numbers if you can profit from the leases within the stations.

It’s no different then from when they were first established,they did not need massive train stations in order to move passengers,it’s the revenue generated from within the station that offsets the cost,no different then them selling food and drinks and having snack bars on the trains.

Kinda like gas stations with convenience stores inside,the gas sales covers overhead and the profit is made on the sales.

A Supreme Court judge ruled Amtrak is a private company back in 2015,they can get investors and do the same thing as private rail is doing but they have to be able to show assets and the best way to do that is with real estate holdings and station leases that generate revenue outside of ticket sales.

They got $60 billion under the infrastructure package along with billions more in COVID funds,so they have a lot of cash,probably more then they have ever had at one time,and they are looking to invest it as much as they are looking at rebuilding.

Across the country they have stacked up at least 5 years of litigation when it comes to interment domain claims,it’s not just what is happening in DC

It is a legitimate concern because it makes sense enough for them to try it.

But Ford has deep pockets and they are already repairing it for the public good,the main argument in DC was the extensive repairs needed and the amount of shops that closed down during COVID put the building in danger.

So the justification was there that in order to preserve the building and protect Amtraks lease they were better suited to take it.

The long term lease with the government gave them a window into the litigation combined with the conditions,they do not have that claim with MTS.

10 years ago they may have had a legitimate reason to take it if they were putting a line in,but they did not have the funds,despite the law they still have to have a valid reason,they cannot just take stuff,because,Ford has removed the reason and it is privately owned so no back doors for Amtrak to build a case on.

They have even gone after smaller stations that were once derelict and through the years local volunteers restored them for their historic value,they want them back now because the land under them has increased in value and they want to tear them down and build new stations with shops and the lease potential.

With the influx of private rail coming in Amtrak has no other choice but to up their game,otherwise they will no longer exist.

[stasu1213]

There's no argument here. Ford had purchased the building from the Mouron Family who were private owners of it. The only building that Amtrak own in Detroit is the one in midtown.

[renf]

Thank you, Richard, for the informative comments about Amtrak and
possible developments at the former depot. I can see that there are
quite a few opportunities for very prosperous business in or near the
depot. Thanks

[bigboat]

Ford has reduced salaried headcount this year alone by over 3000. They basically stopped internal combustion engine development. They have now cut back projected F 150 Lightning sales to 1/2 of what was projected earlier. Autonomous vehicle development is dead as the technology is just not there. Ford is building a huge new R&E Center along Oakwood BLVD. in Dearborn. I wonder where they are going to get enough people to fill all of these buildings. They cannot sell as projected Mach E Mustangs due to cost and limited range.

[Burnsie]

Yes... they might only need partial use of the first floor of the Head House, and partial use of the Midway... but for a while it looked like it was not going to be possible to build a Train Shed...

I doubt Amtrak would require or request a train shed for its one round trip to Canada. The current Detroit station, as well as the new [[2014) Dearborn station don't have train sheds.

I expect that none of the concourse [[if that's what you mean by "Midway", not a term ever used when the station was open) nor original waiting room would be used as an Amtrak waiting area, given the demand of Ford's events, weddings etc. There is room elsewhere on the first floor for a small waiting room, or one could be constructed near the tracks.

To nitpick a bit further, "headhouse" was not used by the railroads which operated the MC Depot. That term was employed at stations where the concourse and waiting room were virtually separate buildings, as at Chicago Union Station, not at MC Depot where all passenger services were integrated into one main building.

[Gistok]

^ OK... yes I've never heard the terms used for MCS... but I was using the train vernacular for the 3 main parts of a large train station.

And correct, no train shed is planned. Although unlike a station such as St. Louis's Union Station, the way the former tracks were configured at MCS, if more than one set of tracks are ever required here... some type of train shed, and underground concourse will be needed... since passengers need some way to traverse other sets of tracks... IF they are ever needed.

[Richard]

There's an interesting controversy going on right now in Washington DC... Amtrak wants to buy back the main train station there... Union Station. I guess there must have been a legal loop hole that allows Amtrak to take it back with compensation, although it doesn't sound like 'just compensation'.

Judge questions if Amtrak taking Union Station is consistent with congressional intent [[msn.com)

Am I correct in assuming that Amtrak could never do that here in Detroit and take MCS back from Ford?

The reason I ask, is because of this statement in the article... "Federal law gives Amtrak the authority to seize property for intercity rail passenger transportation."

I am just quoting you to follow up on this case.

The judge hearing the case

The judge cited a section from the law that states its intent is "historic preservation and improved rail use of Union Station with maximum reliance on the private sector and minimum requirement of federal assistance."
"So if that is what Congress meant to do here, how is what you're proposing to do consistent with that?" Mehta asked. "Because you are now essentially removing the private sector part of this from the equation, are you not?"

Mehta noted that part of Amtrak's proposal "is to substantially constrain the retail part of Union Station."
"And, of course, it wouldn't pay rent to itself," Mehta said, adding that one could assume "the rents kind of are going to go down a fair amount."



Noting that historically Amtrak "hasn't turned a profit" and is not in the business of retail, Mehta asked, "Shouldn't I be concerned that Amtrak is going to need federal assistance to sustain and maintain the station?"

"They are not retail, commercial, call it what you want," defense attorney Y. David Scharf said. "They're not in the business of doing anything except getting the trains in and out."


Amtrak's attorney, Patricia Lambert, pushed back on Mehta's assertion, contending that Amtrak is a corporation.

"I think that the fact that there is no restriction on Amtrak's ability to use the station when Congress could have easily put that into the statute ... established that this is not beyond the purview of the Union Station Redevelopment Act," Lambert said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...stent-congress

I think the biggest issue in all of this is to what extent is,Amtrak while operating as a private corporation,can essentially use government funds to seize a station and restore it while using government funds,while being in direct conflict with private industry when it comes to the retail side of things.

That makes it by proxy a government owned facility.

[Gistok]

^ Thanks for the heads up. I never did believe that Amtrak would ever do anything to get the MCS back... but I do remember reading about how railroads do have some powerful legal tools that go back 100 years, and it appears they are trying to do so in Washington.