Americans experience the economy through reliability and affordability — not through the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) document review process. When a factory stops production because railcars arrive three days late, consumers do not care about regulatory filing requirements, and when grocery prices tick up because shipping costs rise, they do not debate procedural timelines.
The recent procedural setback for the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger should be seen for what it is: a request for more paperwork, not a verdict on whether coast-to-coast rail service would benefit the country. Thus, while we wait for red tape to be untangled, we forgo what is really important — a potentially significant improvement in the U.S. rail network.
Last month, the STB deferred its consideration of the UP-NS merger application, citing insufficient detail in the railroads’ competitive impact analysis and missing contract schedules. This was not a decision on the merger’s merits — it was a finding that a nearly 7,000-page filing needed additional information. In today’s regulatory environment, where agencies build extensive records to withstand litigation challenges, such procedural friction has become standard practice. A paperwork deficiency is not a policy verdict; it’s simply the system asking for more detail before proceeding.
This pattern is nothing new in rail oversight. When CSX sought to acquire Pan Am Railways, the STB initially rejected the application in May 2021 as “incomplete,” citing insufficient market analysis information — the same reason as the UP-NS merger application rejection. CSX filed a revised application, which was accepted in July 2021. The deal received final approval in April 2022 and closed in June of that year. The lengthy process did not indicate the transaction was flawed — it was a manifestation of STB caution and an institutional bias towards additional information.
The rejection has nothing to do with the size of the merger; even smaller deals follow similar timelines. When CN proposed acquiring the 218-mile Iowa Northern Railway, the application sat before the STB for nearly a year — six months past the agency’s own deadline — before receiving approval in January 2025. Even with smaller deals, extended review periods have become part of the STB’s long and detailed process.
The rejection is simply a delay, and the merger is about more than paperwork. A fair review should measure three pillars of the transaction:
It is expected that regulators scrutinize the competitive impacts of any transaction and these procedural delays reflect today’s cautious, litigation-aware oversight culture. The STB’s request for additional detail is a routine administrative step, not a policy judgment.
The STB should judge the merger on whether it works for the people who depend on freight rail every day. The real test will come after regulatory approval, when trains start moving. Will deliveries become more reliable? Will shipping become more affordable? Will supply chains strengthen? These outcomes matter far more than how many rounds of filings it takes to get there.
Michael Gorman holds the Niehaus Chair in Business Analytics and Operations Management at the University of Dayton. The opinions expressed here are his own.
