OPINION: WHY DOESN’T AMERICA HAVE A TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILROAD?

Too much freight moves by truck over long distances that rail could handle more efficiently at lower cost and with fewer externalities. The current system carries real costs: higher fuel prices, more congestion, and more strain on public infrastructure. The proposed merger responds directly to such challenges.

The urgency of this shift has never been more apparent. The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has sent diesel prices surging by roughly 50% since the conflict began — hitting trucking operators with costs they cannot absorb or pass along fast enough. And unfortunately for the American consumer, those increased costs to move freight long distances by truck will flow downstream. When trucking gets more expensive, so does everything on the shelf.

By linking eastern and western rail networks into a seamless system, a combined Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern railroad would eliminate costly handoffs and delays. Freight could move coast-to-coast on a single line more reliably and at lower cost. As competitors invest in their supply chains, efficiency becomes a strategic necessity.

Railroads move the core inputs of the American economy, including energy resources, manufacturing materials, and agricultural products. When rail becomes more competitive, those savings ripple outward. Consumers and businesses notice tangible benefits, and the economy grows.

And beyond the economic benefit, there is also a clear environmental benefit from freight rail, one that does not depend on mandates or subsidies. Rail is already significantly more energy-efficient than trucking on a per ton-mile basis. Shifting freight from highways to rail automatically reduces fuel use and lowers emissions.

This is what progress looks like when markets, not mandates, lead. Better infrastructure wins because it is more efficient, not because the government forces it.

Critics will raise concerns about consolidation, which is expected with any major business deal of this reach. But this merger combines complementary east and west networks, so rail can compete more effectively against long-haul trucking.

Without modernization, rail continues to lose ground. But when we decide to make the investment, rail gains share, and the broader transportation system becomes more efficient. The real risk is not making any moves at all.

At a time when the U.S. is rethinking industrial policy, energy security, and economic resilience, infrastructure should be central to that conversation. In his recent remarks at the Future Investment Initiative, President Donald Trump made that priority clear: “As long as you invest, build, and hire in America, that means I am fighting for you.”

That is exactly what this merger represents: private investment to build in America, strengthen domestic infrastructure, and move goods more efficiently across the country.

Our competitors are investing in logistics, streamlining transportation, and building systems designed for long-term advantage. The U.S. should do the same.

There is also a broader principle at play here. Economic strength and environmental progress can advance together when markets are allowed to innovate and infrastructure is allowed to evolve — this has long been the American model.

The U.S. has succeeded when it chose to build. The railroads that united the country under President Abraham Lincoln and the highways that fueled postwar growth are just two examples of such success. This is another one of those moments.

METRO BOARD VOTES TO AUTOMATE RED LINE FULLY WITH DRIVERLESS TRAINS

Approving the Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger would show that America is serious about modernizing the systems that power its economy. That is the kind of decision that lowers costs, strengthens supply chains, and keeps the U.S. competitive.

And it is a decision Washington should have made years ago.

Drew Bond is the executive chairman and co-founder of C3 Solutions.