International Corporation Air Sciences

Draft 

LADCO 2005 LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS 

Prepared for 

Michael Koerber 

Lake Michigan Air Director Consortium 

2250 E. Devon Ave., Suite 250 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Prepared by 

Christian E. Lindhjem 

ENVIRON International Corporation 

101 Rowland Way, Suite 220 

Novato, CA 94945-5010 

February 2007 

 101 Rowland Way, Suite 220, Novato, CA 94945 415.899.0700
February 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Locomotive\LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions.021406.doc 1 

LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION SOURCES 

INTRODUCTION 

Locomotives are usually the most important source of NOx, PM, and SOx emissions from offroad engines. Rail activity is especially important in the LADCO states, because Chicago and 

other metropolitan areas in the LADCO states represent important rail centers. 

Rail activity has been typically broken into five subcategories or Source Category Codes (SCC) 

shown in Table 1 from the National Emission Inventory (EPA, 2001). Class I railroad operations 

are the largest and most important railroads and have been split into two categories, which 

ENVIRON considered to be their line-haul (SCC 2285002006) and switching (SCC 

2285002010) activity. Smaller rail (Class II and III; SCC 2285002007) include a large number 

of railroads and a wide variety of operations including line-haul and switching operations. It was 

useful to separate switching activity from line-haul activity for both Class I and II/III because the 

emissions are usually specific to a given yard and such engines have different operating profiles. 

Because EPA only provided one switching engine SCC, the Class I and II/III switchers were 

combined in the one SCC. AMTRAK operates the only continuous passenger rail system (SCC 

2285002008), though there may be small (weekend) excursion lines operating sporadically and 

largely unidentified. The only commuter line (SCC 2285002009) that operates in the LADCO 

area is the METRA system in and around the Chicago metropolitan area. 

Table 1. EPA NEI rail categories. 

SCC 

EPA 

Description Railroad Descriptions for This Work 

Relative 

Fuel Use 

2285002006 Class I line-haul Union Pacific (UP), Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe (BNSF), Norfolk Southern (NS), CSX, 

Kansas City Southern (KCS), Canadian 

National1

, Canadian Pacific (CP)2

84.3% 

2285002007 Class II/III line-haul Regional and local railroads line-haul 2.6% 

2285002008 Passenger Trains AMTRAK 1.5% 

2285002009 Commuter lines METRA3 4.2% 

2285002010 Yard Operations Class I yard rail and Class II/III switching 

railroads 

7.4% 

1

 Illinois and Wisconsin Central also included in Canadian National Grand Trunk (CNGT). 

2

 Soo Line included. 

3

 One other line operates an electric rail system only. 

The primary activity unit used to determine emissions is gallons of fuel consumed. To provide a 

perspective on emissions from different categories, the fuel consumption estimates for different 

SCC groups are shown in Table 1. The switching engine activity (SCC 2285002010) includes 

Class I (about 65% of SCC total) and Class II/III (about 35%) outlined by unique yard activity. 

The passenger and commuter rail systems were easily identified for this study and provided 

activity data specific to the system. 

Emission rates used in this work were derived from EPA documents provided as support 

documentation for the 1997 locomotive emission standards (EPA, 1997). The emission rates per 

gallon of fuel consumed are higher with switching engines because the duty cycle is on average 
February 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Locomotive\LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions.021406.doc 2 

lower power and has a significant amount of idling time, so the engine does not operate as 

efficiently as possible. Emission rates are higher for smaller rail systems than Class I railroad 

operations because they have been expected to convert more slowly to lower emissions engines 

(EPA, 2004a). EPA (2004b) provided the ammonia emission rates using the latest available 

data. The emission rates used in this work are shown in Table 2. The different emission rates do 

not match the SCC definitions exactly. The primary differences are that Class II/III switching 

has been treated with distinct emission factors compared to the Class II/III line-haul because of 

duty cycle differences, and commuter rail has the same emission factors as other passenger rail. 

Table 2. Emission factor estimates used in this work (in grams per gallon). (Emission reduction 

due to fleet turnover to engines meeting lower emission standards.)

Engine Type HC CO NOx PM SOx1 NH32

Precontrolled 1999 Line-haul 10 26.6 270 6.7 16.7 0.116 

Precontrolled 1999 Switching 21 38.1 362 9.2 16.7 0.116 

Including emission reductions expected with the EPA rulemaking (% Reduction) 

2005 Class I Line-haul 9.59

(4.1%)

26.6 184.1

(31.8%)

6.43 

(4.0%) 

16.7 0.116

2005 Class I Switching 20.88

(0.6%)

38.1 336.7

(7.0%)

9.14 

(0.7%) 

16.7 0.116

2005 Class II/III Line-haul 10 26.6 265.6

(1.6%)

6.70 16.7 0.116

2005 Class II/III Switching 21 38.1 356.1

(1.6%)

9.20 16.7 0.116

2005 Passenger 9.79

(2.1%)

26.6 200.8

(25.6%)

6.57 

(1.9%) 

16.7 0.116

1

 Reported as SO2 and derived from an average sulfur level of 2600 ppm (EPA, 2004c). 

2

 EPA (2004b). 

CLASS I RAILROADS 

Because the Class I railroads were expected and indeed had the most significant rail operations 

in the LADCO states, every Class I railroad was petitioned for information about their rail 

operations. 

Union Pacific (UP, 2007), Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF, 2006), and CSX (2007) 

provided the most favorable responses providing county summaries of line-haul and switching 

engine fuel consumption. Norfolk Southern provided county level activity for their line-haul 

freight movements in 2002 (NS, 2004) and State totals for 2005 (NS, 2006), and detailed their 

switching rail activity for Cook County yards in the 2002 data but did not update those estimates 

for 2005. Canadian National (CN, 2007) and Canadian Pacific (CP, 2006) railroads provided 

State-level total activity though CP could not detail their switching engines. Kansas City 

Southern, which operates primarily in western Illinois and to Chicago, did not provide activity 

data. Table 3 summarizes the data provided by the railroads for this work. 
February 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Locomotive\LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions.021406.doc 3 

Table 3. Class I Railroad fuel consumption submittals. 

Railroad 

Railroad 

ID Line-Haul Activity Submittal 

Switching Activity 

Submittal 

Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe 

BNSF By county line-haul activity By county switching activity 

Canadian National CNGT State total fuel consumption State total fuel consumption 

Canadian Pacific CP State total gross ton-mile No data submitted 

CSX (Chessie 

System) 

CSX By county line-haul activity By county switching activity 

Kansas City 

Southern KCS No data submitted No data submitted 

Norfolk Southern NS By county line-haul activity in 

2002 and State totals for 2005 

By county switching activity 

for Cook Co. in 2002 only. 

Union Pacific UP By county line-haul activity By county switching activity 

For Kansas City Southern (KCS), which did not provide estimates of relative activity in the 

LADCO states, an alternative method was used to estimate state fuel consumption. The US 

national fuel consumption for the railroad was prorated against the relative system mileage 

within Illinois as a fraction of the railroad’s reported US national system (AAR, 2006). 

For Canadian Pacific, switching engine activity was estimated as a fraction of line-haul fuel 

consumption from their line-haul activity. ENVIRON estimated this to be 7.25% of line-haul 

fuel consumption as derived from the CP fuel consumption submittals (AAR, 2006). Likewise, 

Norfolk Southern provided only the Cook Co. activity, so ENVIRON multiplied the line-haul 

activity by 8.95% for NS specifically to estimate the overall fraction of NS switching engine 

activity. 

Class I railroad fuel consumption is presented in Tables 4 and 5; these estimates are primarily the 

railways’ submittals. 

Table 4. Class I Railroad line-haul 2005 fuel consumption estimates. 

Railroad/State Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin 

BNSF 109,809,384 0 0 0 30,285,369

CNGT 26,370,193 4,799,739 19,491,428 187,760 20,546,552

CP 2,715,644 2,086,920 3,084,322 84,666 9,368,715

CSX 14,637,848 43,189,477 6,541,787 78,198,981 0

KCS 3,028,496 0 0 0 0

NS 22,607,541 53,609,405 3,546,979 78,884,760 0

UP 78,854,338 0 0 0 7,323,114

Total 258,023,444 103,685,542 32,664,516 157,356,168 67,523,751
February 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Locomotive\LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions.021406.doc 4 

Table 5. Class I Railroad switching 2005 fuel consumption estimates. 

Railroad/State Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin 

BNSF 550,000 0 0 0 500,000

CNGT 2,743,600 0 1,584,145 91,323 1,711,510

CP 196,926 151,334 223,660 6,140 679,375

CSX 2,040,000 1,440,000 1,080,000 4,440,000 0

KCS 131,360 0 0 0 0

NS 2,023,203 4,797,633 317,428 7,059,585 0

UP 2,559,434 0 0 0 971,067

Total 10,244,522 6,388,967 3,205,233 11,597,047 3,861,951

CLASS II/III REGIONAL, SHORTLINE, AND SWITCHING RAILROADS 

In order to estimate potentially important small rail activity, the national fuel consumption per 

railroad employee was used and associated with local employment information. Benson (2004) 

prepared the national estimates of fuel consumption and employees shown in Table 6 from 

annual surveys conducted by ASLRRA (1999). Nationally, Class II/III rail is of lesser 

importance than the Class I rail, which consumed nearly 20 times the fuel that these smaller rail 

systems consume nationwide. Table 6 provides the national summary estimates for Class II/III 

fuel consumption and employees; on average about 10,000 gallons of fuel are consumed per year 

per employee. By contrast, the Class I railroad fuel consumption per employee averages about 

25,000 gallons per employee, possibly due to longer haul trips where fewer employees are 

required per ton-mile of operation. The ASLRRA (2007) was consulted for estimates for 2005, 

but ASLRRA indicated that, in the absence of a formal survey, they expect that the level of 

employment and activity has been relatively flat for many years. Based on that assessment, 

ENVIRON assumed the same level of activity for 2005 as 2002. 

Table 6. Class II/III national summary activity rates. 

Year Employees 

Fuel Consumption 

(gallons) 

1993 24,000 200,000,000

1994 25,000 225,000,000

1995 24,000 225,000,000

1996 24,000 200,000,000

1997 No data available 

1998 23,000 210,000,000

1999 23,000 220,000,000

2000 22,000 220,000,000

2001 22,000 220,000,000

The results for estimating fuel consumption in 2002 were used as identical for 2005 within the 

scope of this project. ENVIRON estimated 2002 fuel consumption using the fuel consumption 

per employee where the number of employees for each company was provided from a purchased 

database of Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). The number of employees multiplied by the fuel 

consumption per employee as calculated from 2001 in Table 6 provided the fuel consumption of 

each railroad in each state. The D&B data supplemented by AAR also indicated whether the 
February 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Locomotive\LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions.021406.doc 5 

railroad was considered a typical (line-haul) railroad or only provided switching services to 

determine the appropriate emission factors for line-haul or switching operations by railroad. 

PASSENGER RAIL 

AMTRAK provided an estimate of 2.35 gallons per train-mile of travel. AMTRAK 

(www.amtrak.com) provides the weekly schedules for all trains in the Midwest including track 

mileage on their web site. ENVIRON used the AMTRAK schedules to estimate the number of 

trains and mileage for each train (both ways). These trains are shown in Table 7. The 2.35 

gallons per train-mile fuel consumption figure was applied to the weekly mileage multiplied by 

52 for an annual estimate in Table 8. 

Table 7. AMTRAK Midwest operations in 2005. 

Route Miles Train 

(number) 

Weekly 

Trains 

(Both Ways)

Route to Terminus or 

Exit of LADCO IL IN MI OH WI 

Chicago Zephyr (5 & 6) 14 Chicago – Burlington IA 205 0 0 0 0 

Cardinal / Hoosier State 

(51 & 50) 6 Chicago – Cincinnati OH 9 266 0 24 0 

Cardinal / Hoosier State 

(850 & 851) 14 Chicago – Indianapolis IN 9 187 0 0 0 

City of New Orleans (58 & 

59) 14 Chicago – Cairo IL 365 0 0 0 0 

Empire Builder (7 & 8) 14 Chicago – La Crosse WI 18 0 0 0 263

Hiawatha (329 – 342) 96 Chicago – Milwaukee WI 18 0 0 0 68 

Illinois routes (300 – 307, 

311, 313. 314. 316) 56 Chicago – St. Louis 284 0 0 0 0 

Illinois routes (380 – 383) 

Carl Sandberg 28 Chicago – Quincy IL 258 0 0 0 0 

Illinois routes (390 & 393) 28 Chicago – beyond 

Carbondale IL 310 0 0 0 0 

Lakeshore Ltd. (48 & 49) 14 Chicago – Erie PA 9 146 0 280 0 

Michigan (350 – 355) 42 Chicago – Pontiac MI 9 41 252 0 0 

Michigan (364 & 365) 14 Chicago – Port Huron MI 9 41 267 0 0 

Southwest Chief 14 Chicago – Keokuk IA 220 0 0 0 0 

Texas Eagle (21 & 22 or 

421 & 422) 14 Chicago – St. Louis MO 284 0 0 0 0 

Pere Marquette (370, 371) 14 Chicago – Grand Rapids MI 9 41 126 0 0 

Table 8. AMTRAK state 2005 fuel consumption estimates. 

Fuel Consumption (gallons per year) Train (number) IL IN MI OH WI 

Chicago Zephyr (5 & 6) 350,714 0 0 0 0

Cardinal / Hoosier State (51 & 50) 6,599 195,031 0 17,597 0

Cardinal / Hoosier State 

(850 & 851) 8,798 182,811 0 0 0

City of New Orleans (58 & 59) 624,442 0 0 0 0

Empire Builder (7 & 8) 30,794 0 0 0 449,940

Hiawatha (329 – 342) 383,219 0 0 0 646,682

Illinois routes (300 – 307, 311, 1,943,469 0 0 0 0
February 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Locomotive\LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions.021406.doc 6 

Fuel Consumption (gallons per year) Train (number) IL IN MI OH WI 

313. 314. 316) 

Illinois routes (380 – 383) 

Carl Sandberg 882,773 0 0 0 0

Illinois routes (390 & 393) 1,060,696 0 0 0 0

Lakeshore Ltd. (48 & 49) 15,397 249,777 0 479,024 0

Michigan (350 – 355) 46,192 210,428 1,293,365 0 0

Michigan (364 & 365) 15,397 70,143 456,784 0 0

Southwest Chief (3 & 4) 376,376 0 0 0 0

Texas Eagle (21 & 22 or 421 & 

422) 485,867 0 0 0 0

Pere Marquette (370, 371) 15,397 70,143 215,561 0 0

Total 6,246,131 978,333 1,965,709 496,621 1,096,623

To allocate AMTRAK activity by county, an approximate estimate of the relative mileage in 

each county was used to apportion the fuel consumption for each of the specific trains shown in 

Table 8. One adjustment was made to the track mileage method to more properly estimate Cook 

County, Illinois because all trains are either destined to or originate from Chicago. ENVRION 

estimated the fuel consumption in Cook Co. assuming all trains travel 25 miles within Cook Co. 

The calculation for Cook Co. increased the Cook Co. activity by about 50% over the track 

mileage method. The remaining activity for counties other than Cook County was then 

reallocated to other counties using relative track mileage. 

COMMUTER RAIL 

The largest and only diesel powered commuter line in the LADCO area is the METRA rail 

system. METRA (2007) provided fuel consumption information by rail line as shown in Table 9 

and track mileage along each line by county in Table 10. A sample of the schedule for the UP-N 

line is provided to show that all trains do not run to the end of each line, and also to show the 

relative weekday and weekend activity. Figure 1 shows the rail lines including county 

boundaries. 

Table 9. 2005 fuel consumption for METRA rail. 

Fuel 

(gallons) Lines Comments 

10,346,670 UP (W, N, and 

NW) 

N – M through F; From Kenosha 9 trains 

N – M through F; From Waukegan 16 trains 

N – M through F; From Winnetka 3 trains 

N – M through F; From Highland Park 3 trains 

N – Saturday; Kenosha 5, Waukegan 6 

N – Sunday; Kenosha 3, Waukegan 5 

M-F; 31 per day, Sat = 11, Sun = 8 

4,445,430 BNSF Several trains predominately in Cook Co. 

4,636,460 MD (W and N) Line splits into two 

2,929,984 RI 

642,397 NCS 

552,171 SW 
February 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Locomotive\LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions.021406.doc 7 

Fuel 

(gallons) Lines Comments 

306,248 HC 

0 ME All electric rail line merging with the South Shore Line 

23,859,360 TOTAL 

Table 10. METRA rail line mileage by county. 

Carrier/Line 

Additional 

Description 

Mile

post Co. 

Mile

post Co. 

Mile

post Co. 

Mile 

post Co.

Mile

post

Rock Island District Main Line 0.0 Cook 25.8 Will 40.2 

Rock Island District Beverly Branch 9.9 Cook 16.5 

Rock Island District 

LaSalle - 

Beverly 0.0 Cook 16.5 

SouthWest Service 0.0 Cook 28.9 

Heritage Corridor 0.0 Cook 26.7 Will 37.2 

Burlington Northern 

Santa Fe 0.0 Cook 16.2 DuPage 34.6 Kane 37.5 

Union Pacific West 0.0 Cook 14.7 DuPage 33.0 Kane 35.5 

Milwaukee District West 0.0 Cook 16.2 DuPage 26.2 Cook 34.0 Kane 39.8

Union Pacific Northwest 0.0 Cook 31.7 Lake 35.7 McHenry 63.1 

Union Pacific 

McHenry 

Branch 43.2 McHenry 50.6 

Union Pacific 

OTC to 

McHenry 0.0 Cook 31.7 Lake 35.7 McHenry 50.6 

Milwaukee District North 0.0 Cook 23.0 Lake 49.5 

North Central 

Service 0.0 Cook 31.1 Lake 52.8 

Union Pacific North 0.0 Cook 20.5 Lake 45.2

Kenosha, 

WI 51.6 
February 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Locomotive\LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions.021406.doc 8 

Figure 1. METRA rail system.
February 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Locomotive\LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions.021406.doc 9 

It was beyond the scope of this study to determine absolutely the emissions and fuel 

consumption by county for the METRA system given the large number of routes and train types. 

There are many issues that could affect relative fuel consumption including number of starts, 

weight of each train (number of cars and passenger load), idle time, empty train runs (used for 

scheduling purposes), and range of each train (for instance, not all trains start/run to the end of 

line). This is demonstrated in Table 9 for the sample of trains along the UP-N line where the 

number of trains varies widely by the route and last station north. 

However, it was necessary to provide a best estimate of relative activity by county to reflect 

greater activity in Cook County, rather than using only the prorated track mileage because all 

trains do not run to the end of the line. Because the number of trains running to the end of each 

line is a fraction of all trains along that line, in this work the commuter emissions were 

distributed to each county using the full mileage within Cook County, half the track mileage in 

adjoining counties, and one quarter the mileage for outlying counties. The one-quarter estimate 

was applied to Kenosha (WI) along the UP-N, McHenry (IL) along the UP-NW, and Lake (IL) 

along the MD-N and NCS lines shown above. This approximately reflects the relative activity in 

terms of number of trains on the outer reaches of each line based on the train schedules provided 

for the UP-North line where approximately one quarter of trains run to Kenosha and many trains 

stop at Waukegan, only halfway through Lake County. The modified mileage for each county 

was used to apportion the fuel consumption as shown in Table 11. 

Table 11. METRA rail 2005 annual fuel consumption estimate (gallons) by county. 

Illinois Wisconsin Line Cook DuPage Kane Lake McHenry Will Kenosha 

UP (all) 6,784,402 932,576 125,393 1,458,007 883,840 0 162,452

BNSF 2,682,159 1,519,062 244,209 0 0 0 0

MD (all) 3,541,871 374,911 220,425 499,253 0 0 0

NCS 546,728 0 0 95,669 0 0 0

HC 255,926 0 0 0 0 50,322 0

RI 2,397,260 0 0 0 0 532,724 0

SWS 552,171 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 16,760,517 2,826,549 590,027 2,052,929 883,840 583,047 162,452

For a specific metropolitan Chicago study, it may be warranted to further investigate this 

allocation scheme if a specific local emission inventory is required, but it should also be realized 

that all freight traffic (well defined data were available for BNSF, UP, and NS-freight railways) 

is not as well understood as this commuter system. Therefore, any errors in the allocation 

method for the METRA commuter rail added considerably less uncertainty to all locomotive 

emissions allocations than might be expected with such an approximate method. Also, a 

misallocation will not affect the overall emissions estimates, only to which county those 

emissions were allocated. Lastly, the allocation method used here is more accurate in 

apportioning METRA’s activity than using track mileage alone. 

The only other commuter rail line, the Northern Indiana Commuter Transit District (formerly the 

South Shore line) commuter rail, runs only an electric rail line. This operation operates only two 

small diesel locomotives and only to pick-up nonfunctioning electric trains during rare power 

problems. 
February 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Locomotive\LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions.021406.doc 10 

SUMMARY 

The 2005 summary emissions (annual metric tonnes) for locomotive in the LADCO states are 

shown in Tables 12 through 16.

Table 12. Class I line-haul rail, SCC 2285002006 for 2005. 

State HC CO NOx PM SO2 NH3 Gallons 

Illinois 2,474 6,863 47,491 1,659 4,309 30 258,023,444

Indiana 994 2,758 19,084 667 1,732 12 103,685,542

Michigan 313 869 6,012 210 545 4 32,664,516

Ohio 1,509 4,186 28,963 1,012 2,628 18 157,356,168

Wisconsin 647 1,796 12,428 434 1,128 8 67,523,751

Table 13. Class I/II/III switching rail, SCC 2285002010 for 2005. 

State HC CO NOx PM SO2 NH3 Gallons 

Illinois 400 727 6,597 175 319 2 19,084,503

Indiana 266 483 4,392 116 212 1 12,682,467

Michigan 114 208 1,880 50 91 1 5,455,233

Ohio 282 514 4,578 123 225 2 13,487,047

Wisconsin 81 147 1,300 35 64 0 3,861,951

Table 14. Class II/III line-haul rail, SCC 2285002007 for 2005. 

State HC CO NOx PM SO2 NH3 Gallons 

Illinois 62 164 1,641 41 103 1 6,180,000

Indiana 23 62 619 16 39 0 2,330,000

Michigan 44 117 1,169 29 73 1 4,400,000

Ohio 64 170 1,693 43 106 1 6,376,500

Wisconsin 12 33 329 8 21 0 1,2400,00

Table 15. Passenger (AMTRAK) rail, SCC 2285002008 for 2005. 

State HC CO NOx PM SO2 NH3 Gallons 

Illinois 61 166 1,254 41 104 1 6,246,131

Indiana 10 26 196 6 16 0 978,333

Michigan 19 52 395 13 33 0 1,965,709

Ohio 5 13 100 3 8 0 496,621

Wisconsin 11 29 220 7 18 0 1,096,623

Table 16. Commuter (METRA) rail, SCC 2285002009 for 2005. 

State HC CO NOx PM SO2 NH3 Gallons 

Illinois 232 630 4,758 156 396 3 23,696,908

Indiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Michigan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ohio 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wisconsin 2 4 33 1 3 0 162,452
February 2007 

G:\LADCO 2005 EI\Locomotive\LADCO 2005 Locomotive Emissions.021406.doc 11 

REFERENCES 

AAR. 2006. “Analysis of Class I Railroads, 2005,” and RR Industry Info: Railroad and States, 

http://www.aar.org/pubstores/displayitem.aspx?id=13, 

http://www.aar.org/AboutTheIndustry/StateInformation.asp, Association of American 

Railroads, 2006.

ASLRRA. 2007. Phone conversation with Stephen M. Sullivan, Vice President & Executive 

Director ASLRRA, January. 

ASLRRA. 1999. “1999 Annual Data Profile of the American Short Line & Regional Railroad 

Industry.” Developed by the American Short Line & Regional Railroad Association and 

the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute North Dakota State University. 

(Available online at: http://www.shortlinedata.com/) 

Benson, Doug. 2004. Personal communication, February 19, 2004. See also ASLRRA 1999. 

BNSF. 2006. Personal communication with Lyle Staley, December 21. 

Canadian National. 2007. Personal communication with Erika Akkerman, January 8. 

Canadian Pacific. 2006. Personal communication with Ken Roberge, December 11 and 12. 

CSX. 2007. Personal communication with Rick Nath, January 15. 

EPA. 2004a. Personal communication with Charles Moulis, March 4. 

EPA. 2004b. Personal communication with Craig Harvey, March 10. 

EPA. 2004c. Personal communication with Lester Wyborny, March 11. 

EPA. 2001. Procedures Document For National Emission Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants 

1985-1999.” EPA-454/R-01-006, March. 

EPA. 1997. “Locomotive Emission Standards.” Regulatory Support Document, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, April. And EPA 1997, 

Emission Factors for Locomotives,” Environmental Protection Agency, EPA420-F-97-

051, December. 

METRA. 2007. Personal communication with METRA staff, Mary McDonnell, 312-322-6939, 

January 2. http://metrarail.com/schedule.html

Norfolk Southern. 2006. Personal communication from D.M. Johnson, December 18. 

Norfolk Southern. 2004. Personal communication from Gibson Barbee, March 8. 

Union Pacific. 2007. Personal communication from Jon Germer. January 31.