Amtrak’s takeover of Union Station’s commercial areas took effect today after an appeals court denied a request to postpone the transition pending appeal.
In 2022, Amtrak launched an eminent domain lawsuit to gain full control of the terminal from Union Station Investco.
In April, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled in favor of transferring Union Station’s commercial leasehold interest to Amtrak.
Although Mehta had previously declined to halt the transfer during the appeal, he delayed the takeover from July 15 to July 29 to allow the appeals court time to weigh in.
Union Station stakeholders are planning an $8.8 billion modernization project that is expected to take 13 years.
“We look forward to implementing a plan to improve the historic station for travelers, visitors, and the community,” Amtrak said in a statement after the appeals court’s ruling.
Amtrak had previously argued it couldn’t pursue these improvements because it lacked full control of the property, as it only subleased the terminal’s back end.
The company only owned the station’s platforms and railroad tracks, while USI, which is operated by real estate investment management company Rexmark, was the primary leaseholder of the terminal.
For now, day-to-day operations will remain largely unchanged, although the Washington Post reported that the terminal will eventually be redesigned emphasizing more of a focus on customer service stations, more restrooms and seating. The outlet also cited Amtrak CEO Stephen Gardner, who told a congressional hearing last month that retail would remain a point of emphasis.
“They want the bookstores. They want to be able to go to the cafe. They want a restaurant, and we want to serve the neighborhood well,” he said.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The companies also still need to agree on a fair price, while USI has filed an appeal to regain control of the terminal.
Amtrak proposed a $250 million valuation in its lawsuit, but USI argued this estimate was filed during a low point in transportation, which artificially deflated the property’s value. It countered with a $730 million valuation.
