A new op-ed by Charles Sauer in DC Journal makes a straightforward but often overlooked point: how goods move across the country directly affects what Americans pay at the checkout counter.
Transportation costs are embedded in nearly every product. When those costs rise, prices follow. When they fall, the benefits ripple throughout the economy. As Sauer explains, improving freight efficiency isn’t just a logistics issue—it’s a consumer issue.
At the center of the discussion is the proposed merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, which would create the first truly transcontinental freight rail network in the United States.
“The merger would form the country’s first true transcontinental freight railroad, linking 50,000 miles of track across 43 states into a single, continuous network.”
Today’s rail system often requires “handoffs” between carriers—an inefficient process that adds time, cost, and complexity. Sauer notes that these interline routes don’t just slow things down—they raise prices.
“Shippers that are on routes that require the handoffs between railroad carriers pay an average of 35 percent more than those with access to single-line service on one railroad.”
By converting more than 10,000 of these routes into streamlined, single-line service, the proposed merger would reduce delays and eliminate unnecessary costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers.
Reliability is just as critical as cost. Delays in freight movement can disrupt production schedules, strain inventories, and drive price volatility. A more integrated system would help avoid these disruptions by simplifying long-distance shipping and reducing points of failure.
These improvements would be particularly meaningful for small businesses, which often operate with tighter margins and less flexibility.
“A more connected rail system would give them more dependable access to suppliers and markets, helping them manage costs, plan with greater certainty, and compete more effectively.”
The broader economic impact is significant. Freight rail already generates substantial value, with hundreds of billions in economic output annually and strong returns on infrastructure investment. Strengthening that system through targeted, market-driven consolidation would build on an already productive foundation.
Importantly, Sauer emphasizes that these gains do not require new federal programs or regulatory expansion. Instead, they come from allowing private companies to innovate and optimize their operations based on market demand.
“The free market has consistently delivered efficiency gains across industries, and freight rail should be no exception.”
The merger would also shift an estimated 2 million truckloads of freight off highways and onto rail each year—reducing congestion, improving safety, and further lowering costs across the supply chain.
At a time when policymakers are focused on affordability, supply chain resilience, and economic competitiveness, the case is clear: improving freight efficiency is one of the most direct ways to deliver results.
As Sauer concludes, a unified, more efficient rail network would better position freight rail to compete with other modes of transportation—delivering lower costs, fewer delays, and real benefits for businesses and consumers alike.
Read the full article in DC Journal by clicking here.
