Voices Against the Merger

Joint Shipper Association (American Chemistry Council, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, Alliance for Chemical Distribution, National Industrial Transportation League, and The Fertilizer Institute)

“Many Joint Shipper Association members operate facilities that are captive to a single railroad and ship products that are primarily, if not entirely, dependent on rail transportation. This merger will deepen that captivity, eliminate what limited competitive options remain, and leave them exposed to service deterioration and rate increases with no resource” “The Applicants’ service assurance plan is neither reassuring nor meaningful and their proposed remedies for damages are so constrained that most traffic would not qualify and the Applicants give themselves so many “outs” that it is doubtful that even qualifying traffic would receive any damages” “An undeniable consequence of the merger’s unprecedented scope is that the combined UPNS may extend its long-haul routes deep into the eastern US on every eastbound move from UP locations, and deep into the western US on every westbound move from NS locations. This will either reduce or eliminate the other Class I railroads’ participation in those movements. The Application nowhere considers the effects of these extended long-hauls.”

Rail Users’ Network

“Our concerns include the adverse affect on passengers who travel on Amtrak trains that will operate on the proposed new rail system, the safety of residents who live along the right of way of the proposed rail line, and the impact it will have on the welfare of freight customers by eliminating competition, disrupting service, weakening the U.S. supply chain, and increasing transportation rates.”

American Iron & Steel Institute

“In fact, this merger poses significant threat to industries, such as iron and steel, which move goods via carload, not intermodal transport. First, not one AISI member has reported that they will transfer shipping from truck to rail on account of this merger.”

American Farm Bureau Federation - On Behalf of 6 Million Member Families

"[The merger] would leave farmers more dependent on fewer railroads at a time when they already have almost no ability to walk away from higher costs or poor service. The merger does not create new competition for agriculture. It removes what little leverage remains by eliminating key routing and interchange options that currently help keep rates and service in check."

American Iron and Steel Institute - On Behalf of 21 Member Companies

"The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) writes to express its strong concerns with the proposed merger between Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS). AISI is concerned that this merger, given its unprecedented scope and scale, would undermine market competition, resulting in a freight system that reduces the ability of American manufacturers to compete with foreign competitors."

Transportation for America

"Mergers between major freight railroads often trigger service cuts or track closures, changes that could reduce passenger train service for communities that rely on rail. As regulators push back on an incomplete filing, these potential impacts underscore why passenger rail and the communities it serves must remain central to the review."

South Dakota Soybean Association

"The South Dakota Soybean Association (SDSA) is concerned that the proposed merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern could result in supply chain disruptions and increased transportation costs for soybean farmers in South Dakota, as has been demonstrated in past rail mergers."

American Chemistry Council - On Behalf of More Than 190 Member Companies

"Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are trying to fast-track an unnecessary, unwanted, and potentially crippling merger that would create a coast-to-coast rail monopoly - one that puts imports ahead of American-made goods. At a time when the top concern for Americans is the cost of living and inflation, policymakers must stand with consumers and reject any deal that fails to promote competition over monopolies and drives prices even higher."

Ed Dowell - President, American Train Dispatchers Association

"This merger is about cutting, not improving; corroding, not strengthening. It isn’t leadership. It is exploitation dressed up as progress. So, we will not support this merger as long as it is paid for at the expense of our members’ livelihoods or the safety of the general public."

American Cement Association - On Behalf of 55 Member Companies

"Cement manufacturers, who provide the essential materials that constitute America's roads, bridges, water infrastructure, and so much more, rely heavily on an efficient rail service to get their products to construction sites across the country… The cement industry is concerned the merger could lead to higher costs and lower levels of service for shippers."

Alliance for Chemical Distribution - On Behalf of 400 Member Companies

"Businesses remain unconvinced this mega-merger will resolve the challenges shippers are already facing, including capacity constraints, high rates, and ongoing service issues... It's clear to those who use freight rail day in and day out that this proposal fails to enhance competition and serve the public's interest. ACD strongly opposes this merger proposal as it will expand monopolistic control of freight rail at the expense of America's critical chemical supply chain."

Agricultural Retailers Association - On Behalf of 239 Member Companies

"Farmers and ag retailers operate on razor-thin margins, so even a small, artificial cost increase can have a big impact. When rail service is dominated by just a few players, they hold the power to set terms that work for them—not for the shippers and customers who depend on rail to move agricultural commodities, fertilizer, ag chemicals, fuel, and other essential supplies. That imbalance drives up costs and threatens the reliability of our entire supply chain."

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers - On Behalf of More Than 450 Member Companies

"American refiners and petrochemical manufacturers need competitive, efficient and reliable rail networks to produce the affordable fuels and products Americans depend on every day. Unfortunately, decades of bad service and price increases in the wake of freight rail consolidation leave us and other carload shippers highly skeptical of this merger. Unless the Surface Transportation Board can demonstrate conclusively that it will enhance competition across all modes of transport — especially between railroads — this merger application should be denied."

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen - On Behalf of More Than 51,000 Members

"Mergers can be messy and the very act of merging two railroad cultures creates safety risks. UP can do better… We have met with Vena and others on his team over the past five months. The UP CEO has failed to convince us that he has the best interests of customers, workers and the communities served by rail on his agenda. As a result, it’s now our job, with the full backing of the Teamsters union, to convince the STB that this merger should be rejected."

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division - On Behalf of More Than 51,000 Member Companies

"The proposed merger will make railroads less competitive with other forms of transportation… The ‘Supersized’ transcontinental railroad, to be called Union Pacific, that would be created by the UP-NS merger, spanning 43 states and 50,000 miles of track, would be a de facto monopoly."

National Industrial Transportation League - On Behalf of 60 Member Companies

"NITL has been on the record wanting no more rail mergers… [S]hippers oppose continued consolidation in the rail industry based on past experiences resulting in increased rates, higher fees, and unreliable service."

South Dakota Corn Growers Association

"[P]ast declines in rail competition likely impacted the closures of rural elevators as many of those small and mid-sized elevators did not have shuttle-train loading capacity. Thus, we fear that UP-NS focus on high-density lanes will have similar effect leading ultimately to lower margins for farmers."

National Association of Waterfront Employers - On Behalf of 57 Member Companies

"Intermodal rail expansion is and will be critical to support port and terminal development on a regional basis and will impact a huge percentage of the businesses operating through the marine terminal system. We are greatly concerned as to whether a reduction of two of the four major remaining competitors offering intermodal rail service will serve to benefit our industry."

Coalition of 64 Trade Associations and Interest Groups - On Behalf of More Than 600,000 Combined Members

"The proposed UP/NS transaction would be the largest rail merger in history and would put control of more than 40% of rail traffic in the hands of a single railroad… Past rail mergers have triggered major breakdowns in the supply chain and increased costs for businesses and consumers alike."

Minnesota Grocers Association - On Behalf of More Than 300 Members

"Minnesota’s grocery industry depends on a resilient and diverse supply chain. Further consolidation in the freight rail sector would undermine that resilience, leaving businesses and consumers more exposed to service failures and cost increases. This is not the direction we should be heading. We need more competition and flexibility in our transportation networks, not less."

Montana Petroleum Association - On Behalf of 150 Member Companies

"Past rail mergers have demonstrated the dangers of unchecked consolidation: limited routing options, service disruptions, and higher transportation costs for captive shippers. With just four Class I railroads now controlling more than 90 percent of the nation’s freight traffic, a merger of this scale could further erode competitive access particularly in rural and energy-producing states like Montana, where alternatives are already limited."

Rail Customer Coalition - On Behalf of More Than 11,000 Members

"Past rail mergers have shown what happens when consolidation goes unchecked: service suffers, costs increase, and jobs disappear. Today, just four U.S. Class I railroads control over 90% of all freight traffic. A transcontinental merger could spark a new wave of consolidation, leaving captive shippers with even fewer Class I rail companies and competitive joint line options to choose from."

International Warehouse Logistics Association - On Behalf of 500 Member Companies

"[The merger] would leave many 3PL warehouses and their customers with fewer choices, less leverage, and diminished service quality."

Railroad Workers United

"[Rail mergers] have more often than not been fraught with inefficiencies, confusion, service disruptions, clogged terminals, staffing shortages, exhausted workers, and general malaise… the Union Pacific absorption of the Southern Pacific 30 years ago resulted in a total meltdown of the combined railroads, taking months if not years to recover from."

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen - On Behalf of More Than 10,000 Members

"This proposed merger may look impressive on paper; but we’ve seen how consolidation often plays out in the real world. Cuts to staffing, rushed integrations, and top-down decisions that ignore the craft-knowledge of railroaders are a recipe for diminished safety and growing distrust."

Transport Workers Union of America - On Behalf of More Than 160,000 Members

"The Transport Workers Union of America strongly opposes the planned merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern and urges federal regulators, lawmakers, shippers, and unions to block the deal. Union Pacific has a shameful safety record and was caught by the federal government trying to meddle in a safety audit. There is no world where Union Pacific should be controlling a coast-to-coast rail network. A supersized Union Pacific would be catastrophic for TWU rail workers, shippers, and the safety of millions of Americans who live and work near freight rail lines."