Alabama’s economy runs on rail.
From the farms of the Tennessee Valley to the industries of Birmingham and the docks at the Port of Mobile, more than 3,000 miles of freight rail knit the state together. That network allows producers in places like Northeast Alabama and along Lake Guntersville to move goods efficiently to global markets, turning crops, timber and raw materials into economic growth.
That system works because it is competitive. And that’s exactly what’s at risk.
A proposed merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern would concentrate enormous control over freight rail into fewer hands. For Alabama, where rail access can determine whether a farmer or manufacturer turns a profit, that shift could have real consequences.
Today, Norfolk Southern alone operates more than 1,300 miles of track across the state. Combining with Union Pacific would reduce the number of major rail carriers competing for business, limiting options for shippers, and weakening their ability to negotiate rates, routes and service terms. Nationally, the merged entity would control a massive share of the freight market.
Supporters of the merger argue that consolidation would create efficiencies. But for those who rely on rail every day, fewer choices often mean higher costs and less reliable service. That concern is not hypothetical. The American Farm Bureau Federation—hardly an alarmist voice—has already raised objections, warning that farmers are especially vulnerable when rail competition shrinks.
Unlike other industries, agriculture has little flexibility when it comes to transportation. Crops must move when they’re harvested, and often there is no practical alternative to rail. Economists call this “inelastic demand,” but for farmers it simply means they have to pay whatever rate they’re given. When costs rise, profits shrink.
And those costs have been climbing. Over the past two decades, rail revenue from farm products has more than doubled, even as farmers face mounting pressure from higher input costs and volatile trade conditions. A merger that further tilts the balance toward rail carriers could deepen that strain.
The implications extend far beyond the farm.
The Port of Mobile is a cornerstone of Alabama’s economy, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs and driving tens of billions in economic activity. Its success depends on affordable, reliable access from inland producers. If rail service becomes more expensive or less dependable, the ripple effects would be felt across the state—in the price of groceries, the cost of building materials, and the competitiveness of Alabama exports.
This is why federal oversight matters. The Surface Transportation Board is tasked with ensuring that major rail transactions serve the public interest, not just corporate balance sheets. Earlier this year, the Board determined the company’s initial application was incomplete—a sign that serious questions remain.
When a revised proposal comes forward, regulators should take a hard look at what this merger would mean on the ground in Alabama. For many communities, rail access is not just a convenience, it is an economic lifeline.
At a time when families and businesses are already navigating rising costs, policymakers should be wary of any move that could make it harder to move goods and earn a living. Alabama’s farmers, workers and industries depend on a rail system that works for them—not one that works against them.
