Stand at the Union Pacific rail yard in Roseville on any given morning and you’ll watch something remarkable: a quiet, steady river of commerce flowing out of California’s heartland and over the Sierra Nevada. Lumber from the foothills. Grain from the Sacramento Valley. Consumer goods destined for families from Sacramento to Salt Lake City. It doesn’t make headlines. But without it, the economy of eastern California and the nation simply doesn’t work.
That unglamorous, essential network is now at the center of a policy debate in Washington. With the House having advanced its version of the next surface transportation bill, attention now turns to the Senate. Lawmakers have a choice: build on a framework that is already delivering results in communities like ours or impose broad mandates that raise costs without improving outcomes. For those of us who work in local economic development across California, the right path is clear, and the evidence is close to home.
Zoom out from Roseville to our statewide rail network that spans nearly 5,000 miles—roughly the distance from Los Angeles to New York and back. The 27 different railroads feeding into this network move some 150 million tons of goods to, from, or through California each year. Without them, that cargo would require about 8.5 million additional trucks, adding congestion and wear to our roads, even as railroads continue to invest billions of private dollars into maintaining and improving their networks.
That strong foundation is why targeted federal rail investments have been so effective—and why they should continue. In 2019, the Federal Railroad Administration awarded Sierra Northern Railway $17 million through the Consolidate Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program to rehabilitate 35 miles of track along its Oakdale branch. Projects like this help modernize aging short line rail infrastructure, improve service reliability, and help local businesses stay competitive.
That federal investment also delivered environmental benefits. Sierra Northern’s Oakdale transload facility removes an estimated 20,000 truckloads per year from regional roads and is now leading the way with testing a zero-emission hydrogen switching locomotive, with a full fleet planned for the Sacramento region by 2027.
It’s also why we are supporting the proposed merger between Union Pacific Railroad and Norfolk Southern. Creating the first transcontinental railroad will help improve efficiency, deliver goods to market faster, and ensure California-grown fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other commodities make it to grocery stores across the nation and world faster and at reduced costs and reduced emissions. At a time when everyone is watching grocery prices closely, reducing costs through a stronger and more economical supply chain are critical.
That’s because freight rail helps keep costs down for families and businesses by moving goods efficiently over long distances, lowering shipping costs and, in turn, prices for everyday items like groceries, fuel, and building materials. Freight trains can move a ton of cargo nearly 500 miles on one gallon of fuel, making them one of the most cost-effective and energy-efficient ways to move goods.
These are not abstract successes—when rail works well, consumers, local economies, and even everyday drivers feel it.
The question before Congress now is whether federal rail policy will build on that success or introduce new uncertainties. As the Senate develops its version of the transportation bill, senators should reject one-size-fits-all rail mandates and instead reinforce the conditions that have allowed railroads to invest, innovate, and improve safety over time. Federal policy works best when it reflects real-world operations across diverse regions like eastern California, not when it applies the same prescription everywhere.
Safety must remain the top priority, and the record reflects genuine progress. Federal data show declining rail accident rates over time, driven by continued investment by the rail companies into infrastructure, training, and technology. Future policy should continue to be grounded in data and tailored to real-world operations, ensuring that new requirements improve outcomes without creating unintended consequences.
For a state as economically diverse as California, where agriculture, timber, manufacturing, and energy all depend on rail, federal requirements that don’t account for regional variation can have real ripple effects. Increased costs or reduced operational flexibility don’t just affect railroads; they can weaken supply chains, raise prices, and limit access to markets, particularly for rural communities.
Representative Kevin Kiley took a thoughtful, data-driven approach during House consideration of the bill, recognizing that well-intentioned but overly prescriptive mandates are not the answer. As the Senate now takes up the legislation, policymakers should follow that same evidence-based approach. The lesson from eastern California is straightforward: build on what is working, protect the rail grant programs that have proven results, and ensure that any new requirements or regulations from Washington are designed in ways that strengthen rather than strain the system that communities depend on.