Last week, a letter entered the public record of the Surface Transportation Board’s docket for the proposed Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger (FD 36873) that every Houstonian paying attention to this fight should read.
Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis — Precinct One, representing Settegast, Greater Fifth Ward, and some of the communities most directly in the path of this merger’s consequences — wrote directly to STB Chair Patrick J. Fuchs to set the record straight.
On October 21, 2025, Trees for Houston submitted a letter to the STB in support of the merger. That letter listed “Rodney Ellis” among the organization’s Board of Advisors — lending the implicit weight of his name and office to UP’s case.
There is one problem: Commissioner Ellis says he never reviewed, authorized, or approved that letter. His office had no knowledge of it. He did not support it. And his actual position, stated plainly in his letter to the STB, is the opposite of what Trees for Houston’s filing implied.
What Commissioner Ellis Actually Said
In his February 25, 2026, letter to Chair Fuchs — now part of the permanent public record — Commissioner Ellis wrote:
“I stand with the residents of Settegast and Greater Fifth Ward in demanding environmental justice, including meaningful reductions in emissions and particulate matter that harm families, and real accountability from Union Pacific and other polluters operating in and around these communities. Any proposed action that risks increasing heavy traffic, air pollution, or cumulative health burdens in these neighborhoods is a matter of serious concern.”
He asked the STB to disregard Trees for Houston’s letter as reflecting his views, and put the Board on notice that any future communication referencing his name or office requires his express authorization.
This is not a procedural footnote. This is a Harris County Commissioner — one with deep roots in Houston’s environmental justice history, who has previously reviewed legal action against Union Pacific over contamination in Kashmere Gardens and Fifth Ward — going on the record with the federal regulator to say: my name was used without my permission, and my actual position is that this merger raises serious concerns for frontline communities.
You can read his letter below:
The 2,000 Letters Problem
When Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern filed their merger application with the STB in December 2025, they led with a number: 2,000 letters of support from stakeholders across the country. It was framed as record-breaking. It was framed as proof of a broad public consensus.
But here is what they did not say:
Those letters were solicited before the merger application was filed.
Before the public knew the terms. Before the STB had reviewed the details. Before the application was rejected as incomplete in January 2026 for failing to include the required information. Before anyone outside of UP and NS’s inner circle had access to the very data the STB has since demanded.
Think about what that means. Organizations and individuals willingly signed letters of support for a merger whose details — routing plans, competitive impact analyses, labor conditions, the redacted “walk-away” provisions — had not yet been disclosed. In some cases, as Commissioner Ellis’s letter makes clear, names were associated with support letters by organizations that those individuals advise, without those individuals ever seeing or approving the letter.
This is not how genuine public consensus is built. This is how the appearance of consensus is manufactured.
Soliciting Support Before the Facts Were Available
The STB’s 2001 merger rules exist for a reason. They require that any major merger of Class I railroads demonstrate — with evidence — that the merger will enhance competition, not merely preserve it. They set a high bar because the 1990s wave of rail mergers, including Union Pacific’s 1996 acquisition of Southern Pacific, led to years of service disruptions, with Houston absorbing some of the worst of it.
The STB rejected UP and NS’s December 2025 application as incomplete. The Board specifically requested forward-looking market data and agreement details that the companies had not included — some of which UP declined to provide, citing competitive sensitivity. The companies must now refile by April 30, 2026.
So let’s be direct: UP asked organizations across the country to go on record in support of a merger application that the federal regulator subsequently found to be missing required information. Those letters of support were filed with the STB before the public — before the very people whose names appeared on some of them — had any way to evaluate what they were endorsing.
Commissioner Ellis’s letter documents a specific instance of this problem. It raises a legitimate question: how many of the other 2,000 letters reflect genuine, informed support — and how many reflect the same dynamic?
Why This Matters for Our Communities
The neighborhoods Commissioner Ellis represents — Settegast, Greater Fifth Ward — sit in the same corridor as the East End communities that Not Another Houston was built to advocate for. These are communities that already carry a disproportionate share of Houston’s industrial pollution burden. They sit near rail yards, chemical plants, and freight corridors that have been documented as contributing to some of the highest cancer risk rates in the country.
When UP solicits letters of support from civic organizations before disclosing merger terms — and those organizations list advisors who never signed off — frontline communities appear to have endorsed an outcome they were never given the chance to evaluate. The burden of that misrepresentation falls hardest on the people who have the most at stake and the least institutional power to correct it.
Commissioner Ellis corrected it. He went directly to the STB Chairman, put his actual position in the public record, and made clear where he stands: with the residents of Settegast and Greater Fifth Ward, demanding environmental accountability from Union Pacific.
We stand there too.
What We’re Asking
The STB should scrutinize the composition and provenance of UP’s support letters in its review of the refiled application. Letters solicited before the application was complete — before the STB itself had determined the filing met basic requirements — should be weighted accordingly.
We are also calling on other organizations and individuals whose names appear in UP’s support materials to review what was filed on their behalf, and to correct the record if their support was assumed rather than given.
If you are an organization, elected official, or community leader whose name was listed in connection with the UP-NS merger and you did not explicitly authorize that use, the STB docket is public and open. You can file a clarification. Commissioner Ellis showed exactly how it’s done.
The refiled application is due April 30, 2026. The window to be heard — with accurate, honest information — is now.
Not Another Houston 
Leave a comment