Impasse Threatens Metrolink Service to West County

Metrolink rail service to western Ventura County could come to a permanent halt Feb. 27 unless transportation officials and Union Pacific Railroad can resolve a bitter contract impasse.

Commuter trains run on a 20-mile stretch of track between Oxnard and Moorpark under a lease agreement with owner Southern Pacific, which has since merged with Union Pacific.

But that agreement has expired, and Union Pacific is demanding $430,000 a year plus rail maintenance fees of $6.10 a mile for use of its tracks.

The county’s Transportation Commission and the rail authority that operates Metrolink consider that demand outrageous, and are concerned that it could hold disastrous consequences for other rail-sharing agreements with Union Pacific throughout Southern California.

“They used to say Southern Pacific were the great train robbers, but these people at Union Pacific have made them look like Boy Scouts,” said commission Chairman Bill Davis, who has met with the rail company’s negotiator numerous times in recent months. “Do you think that for 20 miles of track little old Ventura County should have to pay that kind of money?”

Metrolink officials estimate that the two stops in Oxnard and Camarillo now generate more than 400 passenger trips a day heading to and from Los Angeles, reducing pollution and freeway traffic. Metrolink also stops at Moorpark and Simi Valley.

As he left the Metrolink train Thursday at the Oxnard Transportation Center, Guy Stancil, 38, said the looming closure of the west county route would force him to drive to his job in Van Nuys.

“If the alternative is going to Moorpark, well, I might as well drive all the way then,” Stancil said after the 6:02 p.m. train arrived half an hour late. “It basically stinks.”

Union Pacific spokesman Mike Furtney said the company is simply interested in recouping its costs for allowing Metrolink to use its tracks after three years of giving Ventura County what amounts to a free ride. The Transportation Commission, which pays for local Metrolink service, had only been paying Union Pacific a small maintenance fee of about $6,562 a month, he said.

Furtney conceded that negotiations are going nowhere. And after a press conference last week in which Davis and other county leaders likened Union Pacific to the greedy railroad robber barons of the 19th century, he said “deeply offended” company officials are in no mood to continue talks.

“We told them if that is the way you are going to operate, then consider the service finished,” Furtney said. “We had yielded on many points, and we thought we were close to an agreement, but they went and pulled this immature stunt.

“I do not expect this to be resolved,” he added. “From their tactics, we have concluded they do not want to negotiate.”

Davis, who last met with Union Pacific negotiators Feb. 6, said the two sides had been close to a deal but that it fell through. The deal called for the Transportation Commission to pay Union Pacific $100,000 a year as well as to commit $500,000 annually for rail improvements.

That deal, however, would not have required any extra expenditures for several years because the commission is already set to spend millions of dollars on projects, such as repairs to the Santa Susana tunnel.

Hoping to force the company’s hand, the commission has filed a claim with the federal government asking it to require Union Pacific to allow Metrolink use of its rails in the west county.

Davis strongly hinted Thursday that the commission was close to taking legal action against Union Pacific, possibly seeking an injunction in coming days to continue the service beyond next week.

“There are a lot of courts in the world,” he said. “We do have some options.”

Whatever takes place, Metrolink spokesman Peter Hidalgo said the commuter rail agency will support the county because the issue has ramifications throughout Southern California.

“It is a regional issue because we run on Union Pacific tracks from Riverside to Los Angeles also,” Hidalgo said. “And if they pull this stunt in Ventura, who is to say they could not do the same in other parts of our network?”

Such statements are completely groundless, according to Furtney.

“I would not infer that at all,” he said. “We have these kinds of agreements with transit agencies all over the place, and we have never had the kinds of problems we are having in Ventura County.”