Few things are more important to Alabama’s economy than a reliable freight rail system.
Our manufacturers depend on it. Our farmers depend on it. Our forestry industry depends on it. From the Tennessee Valley to the Port of Mobile, rail helps move the products that power Alabama’s economy.
That’s why the proposed merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern deserves careful scrutiny.
I’m not opposed to mergers simply because they’re large. If a business combination creates greater efficiency, improves service, and strengthens competition, it deserves thoughtful consideration.
But that’s not something regulators should simply assume.
It’s something the companies should prove.
So far, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern haven’t met that standard.
The Surface Transportation Board has now required the companies to revise their application more than once because essential information was missing. That’s significant. When regulators reviewing one of the largest rail mergers in American history continue asking for more answers, it tells us those questions matter.
Supporters of the merger promise lower costs, better service, and new opportunities for customers.
Those are attractive promises.
But history tells us promises alone aren’t enough.
We’ve seen previous rail mergers accompanied by ambitious projections that ultimately failed to materialize. Today, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are making even bigger claims about the benefits this merger will deliver.
Perhaps they’re right.
But “perhaps” isn’t enough when the livelihoods of farmers, manufacturers and thousands of Alabama workers could be affected.
Reduced competition is a legitimate concern.
When customers have fewer choices, they often have less leverage. That can mean higher shipping costs, reduced service, and fewer options when problems arise. Those aren’t abstract concerns, they directly affect the businesses that create jobs and drive economic growth throughout Alabama.
The companies insist those problems won’t occur.
I hope they’re right.
But hope is not a substitute for evidence.
Before regulators approve a merger that would reshape freight rail across much of the country, they should insist on clear, measurable, and enforceable commitments, not optimistic projections, or assurances that everything will work out.
Alabama has too much at stake to settle for anything less.
This decision shouldn’t be based on what’s best for two railroad companies.
It should be based on what’s best for the customers who depend on them.
If Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern can demonstrate this merger will preserve competition, improve service, and deliver meaningful benefits for Alabama businesses, they should have the opportunity to make that case.
But until they do, regulators should continue asking tough questions.
That’s not anti-business.
It’s exactly the kind of oversight the public expects when two companies seek approval for one of the largest mergers in modern American history.
James Lomax serves in the Alabama Legislature representing Madison County