The proposed $85 billion merger between Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) is the largest rail merger in U.S. history. If approved, it would create the nation’s first coast-to-coast freight railroad — and concentrate nearly half of all U.S. rail freight in a single company’s hands. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is the sole agency with authority to approve or reject this deal, and they need to hear from communities like ours.
We’ve been paying attention. Here’s what you need to know.
What Is Being Proposed
Union Pacific has offered to acquire Norfolk Southern in a deal valued at approximately $85 billion. The combined railroad would:
- Control more than 50,000 route miles across 43 states
- Handle roughly 43–45% of all U.S. rail freight
- Control more than half of all chemical product shipments in the country
- Connect approximately 100 ports across North America
Union Pacific CEO Jim Vena calls it a transformation. He says critics need to “quit looking backwards.” But communities like ours — communities that have lived through what UP mergers actually look like on the ground — know that history isn’t something to ignore. It’s something to learn from.
We Have Already Lived Through This
In 1996, Union Pacific merged with Southern Pacific. By 1997 and 1998, the result was a massive rail traffic backlog centered on Houston — disrupting freight movement, blocking crossings, and snarling supply chains for months.
That’s not ancient history. That’s the lived experience of this city. That’s why the STB rewrote its merger rules in 2001, establishing a higher standard: mergers of major Class I railroads must not just preserve competition — they must enhance it.
This UP-NS merger is the first deal to face those stricter rules. The companies have not yet demonstrated how they will meet that standard. In fact, when they filed their formal application in December 2025, the STB rejected it as incomplete, requesting additional information, including forward-looking market data and agreement details. A revised filing is expected by April 30, 2026.
Who Is Raising Alarms — And Why
The opposition to this merger is not a fringe position. It spans the ideological spectrum:
Labor: Two of the railroads’ largest unions — the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division, together representing more than half the workforce — withdrew their support in December 2025. They cited safety deterioration risks, higher shipping costs passed to consumers, and concern that small-town rail lines would be handed off to short-line operators while slow, mile-long trains dominate the main lines.
Industry: The American Chemistry Council, representing an industry that depends on reliable, competitively priced rail for hazardous materials shipments, warns that a combined UP-NS would control more than half of all chemical product shipments nationally, with no meaningful competitive check.
Shippers: Seven major shipper associations, including the Freight Rail Customer Alliance, have urged regulators to block or impose strict conditions on the deal. BNSF — itself a competing railroad — was direct: “No customer is asking for this. This is strictly a Wall Street play for shareholders.”
Bipartisan elected officials: 54 Republican state legislators sent a letter to the STB warning the merger could raise costs on steel, food, autos, and energy — and hurt U.S. competitiveness against China. Red-state attorneys general have raised national security concerns. Senators from both parties have expressed alarm.
Economic experts: Even conservative free-market economists have come out against the deal, arguing it crosses the line from capitalism into cartelization.
The Monopoly Problem
Today, four Class I railroads control roughly 90% of U.S. rail freight. This merger would reduce that to three dominant players — and give one railroad control over nearly half the country’s rail tonnage.
Freight railroads already operate under a different set of antitrust rules than most industries. They are immune to many traditional antitrust protections that exist to prevent monopolistic behavior. That makes the STB’s “enhance competition” standard the only meaningful safeguard — and it raises the stakes of approving this merger without meeting that standard.
There is also a domino effect concern: analysts warn that if UP-NS is approved, it would almost certainly trigger a merger between BNSF and CSX — potentially leaving nearly 90% of U.S. rail freight in the hands of just two companies.
What This Means for Houston’s East End
Our community sits at the intersection of some of the most heavily trafficked rail corridors in the country. We have documented the reality of living next to Union Pacific’s infrastructure:
- Blocked crossings that delay emergency response vehicles, isolating neighborhoods during medical emergencies and fires
- Increased freight volume on existing corridors, with no corresponding infrastructure investment in fenceline communities
- Environmental burden borne disproportionately by communities of color along the rail corridor — communities already living near chemical facilities and industrial sites
- No seat at the table when decisions are made about routing, expansion, or operational changes that directly affect our quality of life
The 1996 UP-SP merger created a traffic backlog that hit Houston hardest. A merger of this scale — combining UP’s western network with NS’s eastern one — would route even more freight through our city. UP’s CEO has acknowledged that the merged railroad would dramatically expand intermodal operations. More trains. More crossings. More blockages. More exposure.
And the communities that will bear that burden are not the ones signing off on this deal.
What UP Says vs. What the Record Shows
Union Pacific has promised:
- Faster coast-to-coast service (up to 2 days saved per shipment)
- 1.4 million truckloads converted to intermodal in 36 months
- Job preservation and potential growth
- Competition enhancement
What the record shows:
- The STB rejected the initial filing as incomplete, including requests for forward-looking market data that UP didn’t want to provide
- UP redacted the section specifying conditions under which it could walk away from the deal, citing competitive sensitivity
- Critics, including analysts and shipper groups, have disputed UP’s classification of what counts as “growth,” arguing rail-to-rail market shifts shouldn’t be counted alongside truck-to-rail conversion
- The history of rail mergers in the U.S. — including UP’s own — does not support the rosy service projections
What We’re Asking For
The Not Another Houston campaign is calling on the Surface Transportation Board to:
- Apply the full 2001 merger standard — requiring demonstrated enhancement of competition, not just assertions
- Prioritize fenceline and environmental justice communities in the public interest analysis — communities that bear the operational burden of rail infrastructure deserve protection
- Require specific, enforceable conditions around blocked crossings, emergency vehicle access, and community notification before approving any version of this deal
- Hold robust public hearings in Houston and other impacted communities — not just in regulatory proceedings accessible only to well-resourced stakeholders
The STB has said a decision is expected by 2027. That process is happening now. The window to be heard is open.
How You Can Help
- File a comment with the STB in Docket FD 36873 — public participation is open, and your voice counts
- Contact your elected officials — city council members, state legislators, and federal representatives need to hear from constituents, not just lobbyists
- Share this post with neighbors, community organizations, and local businesses that depend on safe, affordable, and accessible infrastructure
- Stay connected at notanotherhouston.org for updates, resources, and action alerts
We have been here before. We know what it looks like when a railroad merger comes to Houston and communities like ours are left to absorb the consequences. That’s exactly why this campaign exists.
Not Another Houston 
Leave a comment