Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern Merger Claims 2.1 Million Trucks Off Roads Annually

Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern estimate their proposed merger would remove 2.1 million trucks from US highways every year, a claim now before the Surface Transportation Board as the regulator weighs the first coast-to-coast railroad in American history.

The railroads also project $3.5 billion in annual shipping cost savings and a $1 billion cut in operating costs within three years of closing. Those numbers arrive at a moment when rail's competitive position against trucking is deteriorating.

Why is rail losing freight to trucks?

Over the past decade, freight shipments have steadily shifted from rail to highway trucks. The reason, according to the proposal's backers, is straightforward: trucks have generally been faster, even if less efficient.

Rail remains the most fuel-efficient way to move cargo over land, producing roughly 75 percent less emissions than trucking. It also causes significantly fewer injuries and fatalities. Efficiency, however, has not translated into speed or schedule predictability for shippers.

The speed gap is about to widen. Driverless trucks already haul paid freight across Texas and the Sun Belt. Aurora, the industry leader in autonomous trucking, expects more than 200 driverless trucks on the road by year's end, running routes longer than federal rules permit a human driver to cover without stopping. A truck that never rests compounds rail's disadvantage.

How does fragmentation hold rail back?

No single US railroad currently provides coast-to-coast service across the country's eastern and western networks. Cross-country shipments must be handed off between independently operated carriers.

Those interchanges add delays, complicate scheduling, and make arrival times harder for shippers to predict. The costs ultimately reach consumers through higher prices and longer shipping times.

The merger would create a single-line network connecting shippers directly to markets. By reducing, and in many cases eliminating, carrier-to-carrier transfers, the combined system would cut transit times by a day or two on many routes, with savings exceeding that on Southern California-to-Southeast corridors.

What are the projected economic effects?

The railroads' estimates, which remain projections rather than measured results, break down into several figures:

• 2.1 million trucks removed from the road annually, reducing congestion and highway accidents
• $3.5 billion per year in reduced shipping costs as freight shifts from costlier overland options
• $1 billion annually in operating cost reductions within three years
• Over $5 billion per year in combined capital improvements the two railroads already spend, money the merged company could reinvest in jobs and efficiency

Backers argue the merger would force competitors to innovate and invest to retain business, extending safety and reliability gains across the industry.

Could the merger reduce cargo theft?

Fewer handoffs and less waiting time between carriers would also reduce opportunities for theft, according to the proposal's advocates. The stakes are measurable.

Major US railroads reported more than $200 million in cargo theft losses in 2025, according to Association of American Railroads data. That figure represents an increase of more than 50 percent over the previous year.

What must the STB decide?

The Surface Transportation Board is now evaluating the proposal. Supporters argue the board should treat expanded freight competition and lower supply-chain costs as primary considerations in its deliberation.

The case for approval rests on a simple proposition: shippers need both speed and predictability, and a connected transcontinental network can deliver faster service, lower costs, and a stronger alternative to trucks — including the driverless fleets now coming online.

Whether the railroads' projections survive regulatory and competitive scrutiny will determine whether the first US transcontinental railroad becomes a model for network consolidation or a contested footnote in freight history.