ATTACHMENT I

CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED AVERAGE SUMMER WEEKDAY 

LOCOMOTIVE INVENTORIES FOR HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA AND 

DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREAS FOR SELECT YEARS 2012, 2014, 2017, 2020, 

2023, 2026, AND 2028
CONTROLLED AND 

UNCONTROLLED AVERAGE 

SUMMER WEEKDAY 

LOCOMOTIVE INVENTORIES 

FOR HOUSTON-GALVESTONBRAZORIA AND DALLAS-FORT 

WORTH AREAS FOR SELECT 

YEARS 2012, 2014, 2017,

2020, 2023, 2026, AND

2028

Final

Prepared for:

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Air Quality Division

Prepared by:

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

April 30, 2015
ERG No. 0345.00.003.002

TEXAS RAILROAD SIP EMISSION CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED 

AVERAGE SUMMER WEEKDAY RAILROAD INVENTORIES FOR 

HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA AND DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREAS 

FOR SELECT YEARS 2012, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, 2026,

AND 2028

TCEQ Contract No. 582-15-50416

Work Order No. 582-15-51538-02-FY2015-11

Prepared for:

Cody McLain

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Emissions Assessment Section

P. O. Box 13087

Bldg. E, Room 335

Austin, TX 78711-3087

Prepared by:

Heather Perez

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

1600 Perimeter Park Drive

Suite 200

Morrisville, NC 27560

April 30, 2015
i

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 Data Collection................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Union Pacific ...........................................................................................2-2

2.2 Kansas City Southern.............................................................................. 2-3

2.3 Texas & Northern Railway ...................................................................... 2-3

2.4 South Plains Lamesa Railroad................................................................ 2-3

2.5 Watco Companies ................................................................................... 2-3

2.6 Switch Yard Locations............................................................................. 2-3

3.0 Processing of Local Data .................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Line-Haul Data........................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Union Pacific Railroad Data Processing ...................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Kansas City Southern Railroad .................................................... 3-1

3.1.3 Burlington Northern Santa Fe ..................................................... 3-1

3.1.4 Class II and Class III Line-Haul Data.......................................... 3-1

3.2 Switch Yard Data..................................................................................... 3-2

4.0 Emission Factors ................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 VOC and NOx by Tier .............................................................................. 4-1

4.2 VOC and NOx by Year..............................................................................4-2

5.0 Allocation of Class I Line-Haul Emissions .........................................................5-1

5.1 Class II/III Line-Haul Emissions Allocation.......................................... 5-2

6.0 Projection Factors .............................................................................................. 6-1

7.0 Results .................................................................................................................7-1

8.0 References .......................................................................................................... 8-1

Appendix A. Locomotive Emission Control Programs in Texas, 2008-2040.............A-1
ii

List of Tables

Table 2-1. Summary of Data Solicitation Effort...............................................................2-1

Table 4-1. Uncontrolled Emission Factors from 2009 EPA Technical Highlights 

Publication(g/gal)*............................................................................................... 4-2

Table 4-2. NOx Emission Factors by Year (g/gal)*..........................................................4-3

Table 4-3. VOC Emission Factors by Year (g/gal)* ........................................................ 4-4

Table 6-1. AEO-based Growth Factors for Locomotive Activities.................................. 6-2

Table 7-1. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NOX Emissions (tons)by Year for the Dallas/ 

Fort Worth - 9 County Area .................................................................................. 7-1

Table 7-2. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NOX Emissions (tons) by Year for the 

Dallas/ Fort Worth - 9 County Area .....................................................................7-2

Table 7-3. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/ 

Fort Worth - 9 County Area ..................................................................................7-2

Table 7-4. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the 

Dallas/ Fort Worth - 9 County Area .....................................................................7-3

Table 7-5. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NOX Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/ 

Fort Worth - 4 County Area ..................................................................................7-3

Table 7-6. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NOX Emissions (tons) by Year for the 

Dallas/ Fort Worth - 4 County Area .....................................................................7-3

Table 7-7. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the Dallas/ 

Fort Worth - 4 County Area ..................................................................................7-4

Table 7-8. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the 

Dallas/ Fort Worth - 4 County Area .....................................................................7-4

Table 7-9. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NOX Emissions (tons) by Year for the 

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area.......................................................................7-4

Table 7-10. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NOX Emissions (tons) by Year for the 

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area.......................................................................7-5

Table 7-11. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the 

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area.......................................................................7-5

Table 7-2. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year for the 

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area.......................................................................7-6
iii

List of Figures

Figure 2-1. Class I, II, and III Rail Yard Locations in Texas ...........................................2-5
1-1

1.0 Introduction

The objective of this Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) project is to 

develop volatile organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) controlled and 

uncontrolled locomotive emissions estimates for years 2012, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, 

2026, and 2028 to aid in State Implementation Plan (SIP) development for the eightcounty Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB), the nine-county Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) 

1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas, and the four-county DFW 1997 one-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. During project development, activity data for 2014 were not 

available. Therefore, Eastern Research Group (ERG) obtained activity data from 2013 as 

this represented the most recent available data at the time the project began. ERG 

collected activity data for calendar year 2013, updated activity factors for future years,

and used those factors to develop ozone season weekday emission inventories for 

locomotives. ERG developed trend data for both controlled and uncontrolled criteria 

emissions for years 2008 to 2040. 

One improvement of this inventory over previous efforts is its bottom-up approach that 

integrates significant amounts of locally provided data. While previous efforts have 

relied partially on a top-down approach adjusting national inventory data to quantify 

state and county level activity and emissions, recent trends in inventory development 

have emphasized increased spatial resolution that is not well served by modifying 

national-level data. For that reason, the TCEQ sought inventory efforts built on detailed, 

locally-based activity and emissions data. 

The Texas Locomotive SIP Emissions Inventory includes Class I, II, and III railroad 

activity and emissions by rail segment for the following counties: the eight HGB eighthour ozone nonattainment counties including Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, 

Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller; the nine DFW eight-hour ozone 

nonattainment counties including Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, 

Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant; and the four DFW one-hour ozone nonattainment 

counties including Dallas, Denton, Collin, and Tarrant. This report describes the 

inventory approach, including initial collection of local data, emissions calculations, and 

spatial allocations used to develop the Locomotive SIP inventory.
2-1

2.0 Data Collection

A primary objective of the Texas Locomotive SIP Emissions Inventory is to include rail 

companies operating in the state of Texas in the inventory effort. To meet this objective, 

ERG solicited line-haul and yard data from all Class I, II, and III railroad companies 

operating in Texas. All railroad members listed in the American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association (ASLRRA) as operating in Texas were included, as well as Class I 

rail companies Union Pacific (UP), Burlington Northern – Santa Fe (BNSF), and Kansas 

City Southern (KCS). Additional input was requested from the Texas Department of 

Transportation and the Texas Transportation Institute (ASLRRA 2011). Approximately 

47 different contacts were identified and ERG contacted the organizations via phone and

email to solicit quantitative and/or qualitative data. 

Table 2-1 identifies the contacts and summarizes the responses received from this 

outreach effort. The remainder of this section describes the data received. 

Table 2-1. Summary of Data Solicitation Effort

Agency/Company Name Contact Name Contact Phone Response

Alamo Gulf Coast Railroad --- (210) 208-4417 No Response

Alliance Terminal Railroad Tine Nelson, 

General Manager, 

Operations

(817) 224-7152 No Response

Angelina & Neches River Railroad Co. Laura Ricks, 

Information 

Systems

(936) 634-4403 No Response

Austin Western Railroad --- (512) 246-0738 Received

Blacklands Railroad Walt Defebaugh, 

President

(903) 439-0738 No Response

Border Pacific Railroad Co. --- (956) 487-5606 No Response

Brownsville & Rio Grande Int'l 

Railroad

Norma Porres (956) 831-7731 No Response

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Mike Clift, and 

Laura Fiffick

(800) 795-2673 No Response

Corpus Christi Terminal Railroad Brent Azzo (904) 223-1110 No Response

Dallas, Garland & Northeastern 

Railroad

--- (972) 808-9800 No Response

Fort Worth & Western Railroad Bill Parker (817) 222-9798, x 

102

No Response

Galveston Railroad, L. P. Brent Azzo (904) 223-1110 No Response

Gardendale Railroad, Inc. Greg Wheeler (618) 632-4400 No Response

Georgetown Railroad Company --- (512) 869-1542 No Response

Kansas City Southern Kevin McIntosh 

(Government 

Relations)

(816) 983-1987 Received

Janet 

Sommerhauser 

(Environment)

(816) 983-1603 No Response

Kiamichi Railroad Co. Seth Rutz, GM (580) 916-7601 No Response

Moscow, Camden & San Augustine 

Railroad

--- (404) 652-4000 No Response
2-2

Table 2-1. Summary of Data Solicitation Effort

Agency/Company Name Contact Name Contact Phone Response

Panhandle Northern Railroad, LLC --- (806) 273-3513 No Response

Pecos Valley Southern Railway Co. Billy Edwards, 

Operations Mgr

(432) 445-2487 Received

Plainsman Switching Co., Inc. --- (806) 744-0118 No Response

Point Comfort & Northern Railway 

Co.

Brent Azzo (912) 964-5337 No Response

Port Terminal Railroad Association --- (713) 393-6500 No Response

Rio Valley Switching Company Greg Wheeler (956) 971-9111 ext. 

117

No Response

Rockdale, Sandow & Southern 

Railroad Co.

Brent Azzo (912) 964-5337 No Response

Sabine River & Northern Railroad David Clark (409) 670-6751 No Response

San Antonio Central Railroad Larry Jensen (620) 231-2230 Received

South Plains Lamesa Railroad Ltd. Shad Wisener (806) 828-4841 Received

Southern Switching Company Greg Wheeler (325) 677-3601 No Response

Temple & Central Texas Railway, Inc. --- (254) 778-8300 No Response

Texas & Northern Railway Co. Mr. Tracy Larson 

Edwards

(903) 656-6762 Received

Texas Central Business Lines 

Corporation

--- (972) 775-1853 No Response

Texas DOT – Rail Jackie Ploch (512) 416-2621 Received

Texas DOT - Environmental Affairs Air Quality contact (512) 416-2691 No Response

Texas Gonzales & Northern Railway 

Co.

--- (830) 540-3788 No Response

Texas - New Mexico Railroad Co., Inc. --- (806) 221-3150 No Response

Texas North Western Railway Co. --- (972) 386-0117 No Response

Texas Northeastern Railroad Dave Geraci (817) 527-4913 No Response

Texas Pacifico Transportation 

Company Ltd.

Jorge Gonzalez 

Chozas, VP 

Operations

(325) 277-3102 No Response

Texas Rock Crusher Railway Co. Andy Scheriger (325) 643-5105 No Response

Texas South-Eastern Railroad Co. --- (859) 881-6588 No Response

Texas Transportation Institute Les Olson (979) 862-2846 No Response

Timber Rock Railroad --- (409) 385-6611 Received

Union Pacific Jon Germer (402) 544-2235 Received

West Texas & Lubbock Railway --- (806) 785-8668; 

(806) 221-3150 

(operating office)

No Response

Western Rail Road Company Frank Caballero (830) 625-8084 No Response

Wichita, Tillman & Jackson Railway 

Co.

Martin Cicalla (940) 723-1852 No Response

2.1 Union Pacific

Union Pacific (UP) is one of the largest Class I rail companies operating in Texas with 

over 6,300 miles of track and more than 7,700 employees in Texas alone. In response to 

ERG’s data solicitation, UP provided a 15-page .pdf document that contained line-haul 

and yard data for all activities in Texas for the year 2013. Line-haul mileage, annual 
2-3

average million gross tons (MGT) per mile, fuel usage, train counts, and emission 

estimates for HC, CO, NOx, and PM were provided by county and track segment. The 

emission estimates were calculated using current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) emission factors, and the fuel usage was calculated based on the system-wide 

average fuel consumption rate for 2013. Yard data were provided by county for 211 “yard 

job equivalents,” which is equal to one switch locomotive operating 24 hours a day. The 

activity data were then provided in terms of estimated annual fuel use in gallons, based 

on an EPA activity factor of 226 gallons per day (gal/day) of operation.

2.2 Kansas City Southern

KCS provided 2013 fuel usage and gross ton miles for 13 distinct routes (e.g., Port 

Arthur to Beaumont, Houston to Beaumont, Corpus Christi to Robstown, etc.) as well as 

maps of these routes. They also provided number of engines and gallons of fuel pumped 

at each of seven yard locations in Texas.

2.3 Texas & Northern Railway

Texas & Northern Railway provided information on a single yard location in Lone Star. 

The data included coordinate locations, annual fuel use, annual hours of operation, and 

number of engines for 2013. 

2.4 South Plains Lamesa Railroad

South Plains Lamesa Railroad provided information on Slaton yard in Lubbock County. 

Data included coordinates, annual fuel use, annual hours of operation, and number of 

engines.

2.5 Watco Companies

Watco Companies provided with information on Austin Western, Timber Rock, San 

Antonio Central, and Pecos Valley Railroads. Data included engine counts, average daily 

hours of use, and headquarter locations.

2.6 Switch Yard Locations

Switch yards have historically been under-represented in inventory efforts due to the 

lack of available data and low response to data requests. Because identifying more yard 

locations and estimating emissions that were not accounted for in previous inventories

was a priority in this project, ERG examined switch yard data carefully. 

ERG reviewed previously identified yard locations against rail networks from the

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and the Texas Natural Resources Information 

System as well as satellite imagery via Google Earth. Two yards were removed due to 
2-4

lack of substantiation from these related data layers, and some yard coordinates were 

shifted slightly to better match the network and/or imagery data. Statewide rail 

networks and satellite imagery were also reviewed systematically to identify potential 

new yards. Potential new yards were identified as areas with several rail segments 

parallel to each other and off of the main tracks according to either rail network. In 

many cases, these yards also had visible train activity in satellite imagery and 

indications of support equipment or trucking facilities nearby. These potential yard 

locations were reviewed by several staff members, and those that seemed questionable 

were removed.

ERG also researched potential and future yards online via websites from transportation 

departments, trade associations, railroad company websites, as well as industry trends 

sites as listed in Appendix A. The 334 switch yards identified in Texas for this inventory 

are shown in Figure 2-1.
2-5

Figure 2-1. Class I, II, and III Rail Yard Locations in Texas
3-1

3.0 Processing of Local Data

3.1 Line-Haul Data

3.1.1 Union Pacific Railroad Data Processing

ERG converted UP’s .pdf data to text using Adobe Acrobat and then imported the data

into Microsoft Excel. Line-haul fuel use and emissions data were summarized at the 

county level and hydrocarbon (HC) was converted to VOC by multiplying by 1.053, and 

NOx emissions were estimated using the fuel-based emission factors and methodology 

described in Section 4.

3.1.2 Kansas City Southern Railroad

KCS provided 2013 fuel usage and gross ton-miles for several distinct routes (e.g., Port 

Arthur to Beaumont, Houston to Beaumont, Corpus Christi to Robstown, etc.) as well as 

maps of these routes. ERG compared these maps against rail segment maps in a 

geographic information system (GIS) to identify the Emission Inventory System (EIS)

shapes affiliated with each route. Total route fuel usage was divided among the 

segments in that route based on segment length, and emissions were calculated using 

segment-level fuel usage. The route from Ashdown, AR to Shreveport, LA was not 

processed because it is outside of Texas boundaries.

3.1.3 Burlington Northern Santa Fe

BNSF did not provide updated data for 2013; however, they did respond to a previous

data request for the 2011 inventory effort. To maximize use of locally-provided data, 

their previous 2011 county-level fuel usage was extrapolated to 2013 using a growth 

factor derived from their R-1 data as described in Section 6. Then the 2013 emission 

factors were used to recalculate 2013 emissions as described in Section 4. 

3.1.4 Class II and Class III Line-Haul Data

No Class II or III Railroad companies provided line-haul data. As a result, ERG used 

other locally-based data sources to estimate 2014 activity levels. The Eastern Regional 

Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC) previously collaborated with the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), the ASLRRA, and members of the Class II and III 

Railroad communities to develop activity and emissions profiles for Class II and Class 

III railroads for 2008 (Bergin et. al, 2009). The ASLRRA compiles data from the Class II 

and III railroads every few years, including total industry fuel use for locomotives and 

total Class II/III route miles. Unfortunately, at this time there are no newer data, so the 

2008 activity data were grown to represent 2013 activity. ERG used the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration’s (EIA) latest Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) to estimate the 

fuel usage growth by year and applied this growth rate directly to the fuel usage data 

before applying emission factors as further described in Section 6.
3-2

3.2 Switch Yard Data

The final yard list includes 42 UP yards, 42 BNSF yards, 12 KCS yards, and 238 Class 

II/III yards for a total of 334 yards. Most respondents provided fuel usage data such 

that emissions were calculated directly using emission factors in grams/gallon as 

described in Section 4.0. For data that did not include fuel use, ERG developed the most 

appropriate surrogates possible to fill in the gaps in activity data. For example, BNSF’s 

previous yard work included emissions but not fuel use. Without supporting data on the 

activity or emission factors used to develop BNSF’s 2011 emissions data, ERG estimated 

the fuel usage in gallons in 2011 by dividing the emissions by the 2011 emission factors 

(grams per gallon). The fuel usage data was then projected to 2013. Watco provided 

engine count and daily hours of operation. To calculate fuel usage, ERG first calculated 

an average Class II/III fuel usage rate from data provided by Class II/III railroad 

companies in Texas to get an average value of 10.05 gallons per hour (gal/hr). ERG also 

used local Class I data to determine that the average railroad company uses 5.39% of 

their total fuel for switch operations. Assuming that the engines work 365 days per year, 

the total fuel use was calculated by yard using the following equation:

SG = L * DH *365 days per year * FR * S

Where

SG = total annual fuel use (gal)

L = number of locomotives

DH = daily hours of use (hr)

FR = fuel usage rate (gal/hr) = 10.05 gal/hr

S = portion of total fuel that is used in switch operations

Example:

Austin Western Railroad has 13 locomotives with an average daily use of 12 hours each.

SG = 13 *12 hr/day * 365 days/yr * 10.05 gal/hr * 0.0539

Switch (gal) = 30,844

For yard locations that were identified during searches but that did not match any of the 

locally-submitted data, a more general approach to activity and emissions estimates was 

needed. First, because ERG received relatively comprehensive data submittals from the 

Class I rail lines in the past, we assumed that these other switch yards were likely related 

to small Class II and III rail lines. Per the 2011 TCEQ Locomotive inventory and current

GIS calculations, there are 2,247.66 miles of Class II and III rail lines in Texas. Using a 

Class II/III fuel use factor of 2,797.74 gallons per mile, obtained from the ASLRR and 

2011 TCEQ Inventory, ERG calculated the total Class II/III fuel use as follows:
3-3

2,247.66 mi *2,797.74 gal/mi = 6,288,368 gallons of fuel

Using the previously defined value of 5.39% of total fuel being consumed by switch 

operations, ERG estimated a statewide switch fuel use of 338,850 gallons for Class II/III 

yards. Because we had total fuel estimates from six small line-haul companies, we 

estimated their switch fuel use as 5.39% of the total and subtracted this “known” fuel 

use from the statewide total to avoid double-counting. The result was a statewide total of 

262,509 gallons for Class II/III switch operations. Given there are 220 Class II/III 

yards, this fuel usage data equates to roughly 1,193 gallons of fuel per year per yard. This 

equates to about 120 operating hours a year or only a couple of hours a week at each of 

these switching yards. 
4-1

4.0 Emission Factors

With fuel usage estimates established for all activity data, ERG could apply fuel-based 

emission factors to estimate emissions. ERG compiled emission factors for Class I and 

Class II/III line-haul and yard locomotives from various references. This section 

provides the source documents and calculations involved in identifying emission factors 

for the listed pollutants.

The EPA Technical Highlights publication, “Emission Factors for Locomotives” (EPA 

2009) provides emission factors on a gram per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp hr) basis 

and then converts them to a grams per gallon basis with a factor based on the usable 

power of the locomotive engine. The conversion requires a factor of 20.8 bhp hr/gal for 

large line-haul locomotives, 18.2 bhp hr/gal for small line-haul locomotives, and 15.2 

bhp hr/gal for yard locomotives. The g/gal emission factors can also be converted to an 

energy basis for use if the heating value of diesel fuel is known. The conversion to grams 

emitted per ton-mile of freight hauled (g/ton-mile) is calculated based on data collected 

by the Association of American Railroads for revenue ton-miles and fuel consumption,

which shows approximately one gallon of diesel fuel hauls 400 ton-miles of freight.

4.1 VOC and NOx by Tier 

The 2009 EPA Technical Highlights publication includes emission rates for 

hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) for line-haul and yard locomotives in 

g/bhp-hr. ERG converted these emission rates to g/gal by locomotive type. These 

emission factors were used to develop the uncontrolled emissions inventory. The 2009 

EPA Technical Highlights publication also lists expected fleet average emission factors 

for NOx and HC by calendar year and locomotive type, which are listed in Section 4.4. 

ERG applied conversion factors to develop the emission factors as needed. Volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) emissions are estimated to be 1.053 times the HC emissions 

provided (EPA, 2009). Table 4-1 shows the uncontrolled emission factors in g/gal for 

the criteria pollutants that were used to develop uncontrolled emission estimates for all 

SIP years. 
4-2

Table 4-1. Uncontrolled Emission Factors from 

2009 EPA Technical Highlights 

Publication(g/gal)*

Uncontrolled Source Category Code (SCC) VOC NOx

Large Line-Haul 2285002006 10.5 270.4

Small Line-Haul 2285002007 9.2 236.6

Yard 2285002010 16.2 264.5

*EPA 2009

4.2 VOC and NOx by Year

The 2009 EPA Technical Highlights publication (EPA 2009) lists expected fleet average 

emission factors that account for fleet turnover for NOx and HC by calendar year and 

locomotive type. ERG included these emission factors for large line-haul, small linehaul, and large yard for the various inventories. 

The conversion factors listed in Section 4.1 apply for VOC. VOC emissions are estimated 

to be 1.053 times the HC emissions provided (EPA 2009).

Tables 4-3 through Table 4-9 list the emission factors by year from 2006 to 2040 for 

NOx and VOC. The emission factors are in g/gal and in each table the emission factors 

are desegregated by large line-haul, large switch, and small railroads.
4-3

Table 4-2. NOx Emission Factors by Year (g/gal)*

Calendar Year

Large Line- haul

SCC 2285002006

Large Switch

SCC 2285002010

Small Railroads

SCC 2285002007

2006 180 250 242

2007 175 249 242

2008 169 243 242

2009 165 241 242

2010 157 236 242

2011 149 235 242

2012 144 227 242

2013 139 225 242

2014 135 217 242

2015 129 215 240

2016 121 208 239

2017 114 206 237

2018 108 202 236

2019 103 200 233

2020 99 187 231

2021 94 185 228

2022 89 177 225

2023 84 172 223

2024 79 162 220

2025 74 150 217

2026 69 144 215

2027 65 138 212

2028 61 132 209

2029 57 126 206

2030 53 119 203

2031 49 112 200

2032 46 105 197

2033 43 98 193

2034 40 91 190

2035 37 84 187

2036 35 77 184

2037 33 71 180

2038 31 67 177

2039 29 63 174

2040 28 60 171

* EPA 2009
4-4

Table 4-3. VOC Emission Factors by Year (g/gal)*

Calendar Year Large Line- Haul

SCC 2285002006

Large Switch

SCC 2285002010

Small Railroads

SCC 2285002007

2006 10.00 15.80 12.32

2007 9.79 15.80 12.32

2008 9.48 15.27 12.32

2009 9.16 15.27 12.32

2010 8.74 14.85 12.32

2011 8.11 14.74 12.32

2012 7.48 14.00 12.32

2013 6.84 14.00 12.32

2014 6.42 13.37 12.32

2015 6.00 13.27 12.32

2016 5.37 12.64 12.32

2017 4.84 12.43 12.32

2018 4.42 12.11 12.32

2019 4.11 12.00 12.32

2020 3.79 11.06 12.32

2021 3.58 10.95 12.32

2022 3.37 10.32 12.32

2023 3.16 10.00 12.32

2024 2.95 9.37 12.32

2025 2.74 8.42 12.32

2026 2.63 8.00 12.32

2027 2.42 7.69 12.32

2028 2.21 7.27 12.32

2029 2.11 6.84 12.32

2030 2.00 6.53 12.32

2031 1.79 6.11 12.32

2032 1.68 5.79 12.32

2033 1.58 5.37 12.32

2034 1.47 4.95 12.32

2035 1.37 4.63 12.32

2036 1.26 4.21 12.32

2037 1.26 3.90 12.32

2038 1.16 3.79 12.32

2039 1.16 3.58 12.32

2040 1.05 3.37 12.32

* EPA 2009
5-1

5.0 Allocation of Class I Line-Haul Emissions

The yard activity/emissions data received were specific to individual yard locations, 

therefore, no further spatial allocation was needed. For yards for which ERG had no 

locally-provided data, ERG divided the statewide fuel use evenly among the 231 yard 

locations. For line-haul data, to facilitate processing and to protect confidential business 

information (CBI), ERG aggregated line-haul rail activity and emissions to the county 

level and then reallocated the activity and emissions back to rail segments within each 

county to meet format requirements of the NEI. This was necessary because railroad 

track identification information was limited to mile markers and segment IDs that are 

specific to individual rail lines’ networks and do not relate to any publically available 

railway networks to allow for accurate spatial mapping of rail activities. 

ERG allocated Class I line-haul emissions to rail segments based on segment-specific 

railroad traffic data (ton miles) obtained from the Department of Transportation (BTS,

2009). The BTS dataset categorizes the segments’ level of activity into ranges of million 

gross ton miles (MGTM) and was populated by the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA). ERG divided emissions between all mainline segments using these activity 

ranges as a proxy to allocate more emissions to segments with higher Class I activity.

ERG reallocated the county emission sums to the segments by multiplying the county 

emissions by the segment’s allocation value divided by the sum of the allocation values 

for all links within the county as follows:



 

N

C 1

LC

L

iL iC

A

A

E E

Where:

EiL = emissions of pollutant i per link L (tons/year).

EiC = emissions of pollutant i per county C (tons/year).

AL = allocation value for link L per activity category from public BTS

dataset.

ALC = sum of allocation values for all links in county C from public BTS

dataset.

The spatial inventory was developed from confidential data from FRA very similar to the 

publically-available BTS rail dataset, so segment IDs were generally consistent with 

those used in EIS, thus facilitating later data processing. 
5-2

5.1 Class II/III Line-Haul Emissions Allocation

The ERTAC Rail paper (Bergin 2011) extracted links that were identified as owned or 

operated by specific Shortline or Regional Railroads from the FRA-provided proprietary 

shapefile to create a shapefile of Class II/III mainline rail segments. Because Class II/III 

railroads are less likely to use rail segments that are heavily traveled by Class I railroads, 

the activity-based approach used for Class I lines is not appropriate for small line-haul

rail activities. Instead, Class II/III line-haul emissions were allocated to rail segments 

using segment length as a proxy.

The county emission sums were reallocated to the segments by multiplying the county 

emissions by the segment’s length divided by the sum of the length for all links within 

the county as follows:



 

N

C 1

LC

L

iL iC

l

l

E E

Where:

EiL = emissions of pollutant i per link L (tons/year).

EiC = emissions of pollutant i per county C (tons/year).

lL = allocation value for link L per activity category from public BTS

dataset.

lLC = sum of allocation values for all links in county C from public BTS

dataset.
6-1

6.0 Projection Factors

Because activity data were requested for only 2013, projection factors were required to 

backcast and forecast activity data from 2012 to 2028 using 2013 as the baseline. ERG 

obtained data for UP, BNSF, and KCS from the Federal Railroad Administration’s 

Complete Class I Railroad Annual Reports (R-1) for years 2008 through 2013. By 

creating a ratio of annual fuel use in gallons, company-specific percent change values 

were calculated and used to adjust provided 2013 or 2011 data to backcasted 2008 

activity levels. For Class II and III lines and for forecasted years for all companies, actual 

fuel use is not available, and a different approach is required. ERG used U.S. Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for year 2013 (EIA 

2014) as the baseline year to backcast activity to 2008 and to forecast (project) future 

activity levels through 2040. The AEO provides detailed annual projections in billion 

ton miles traveled through year 2040. These future projections show little to no growth 

in rail industry over the time period of interest. ERG verified the trend data in EIA AOE 

using the historic and projected data published by the Association of American 

Railroads (AAR 2014) and the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS 2000).

ERG matched the projected activity to the appropriate future year emission factors 

provided in Table 6-1. The AEO-based growth factors account for implementation of 

federal rules that occur relative to the year that the locomotive engine was originally 

manufactured, such that the full benefit of the rule would occur in the future once fleet 

turnover was completed. Additional adjustments were made to future year emission 

estimates to account for compliance with emission control area sulfur standards and

Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) investments. The TERP program provides 

grants to eligible businesses to reduce emissions from polluting vehicles and equipment.

For rail applications, this typically involves repowering or replacing switch engines. A 

complete list of control programs addressed in this inventory is presented in Appendix 

B. As BNSF, KCS, and UP provided data for Texas inventory use, the TERP reductions 

were already included in their estimates. The remaining TERP projects were for smaller 

Class II and III rail lines. ERG used the TERP project data to sum the NOx reductions 

over time for each project and then summed by year to get total annual tons of NOx

avoided due to TERP projects. The NOX tonnage was then added to the uncontrolled 

inventory to correctly account for the increased emissions that would be present were it 

not for the TERP projects. 

For the controlled emissions, ERG also applied reductions related to the Texas Low 

Emission Diesel Program (TxLED). The TxLED Program is implemented to reduce 

emissions of nitrogen oxides from diesel-powered motor vehicles and non-road 

equipment and involves a6.2% NOx reduction in the 110 central and eastern counties 

that are impacted by this regulation, which include all of the counties examined in this 

SIP effort.
6-2

Table 6-1. AEO-based Growth Factors for 

Locomotive Activities

Year Change from Baseline 2013

2012 1.136752

2013 1.000000

2014 1.021696

2017 1.023011

2020 1.067719

2023 1.107824

2026 1.130178

2028 1.132807

ERG also investigated whether the recent reduction in gasoline prices would change oil 

and gas activity in the United States and Texas in future years. Given that this change in 

price occurred recently, no studies or reports addressing this issue were found. In 

researching the topic using Google searches and Google scholar searches, news articles 

mentioning possible impacts were found. However the articles were speculative and 

failed to give any actual data that could be utilized to create or adjust growth factors.
7-1

7.0 Results

The results of implementing the emission estimation methodology and emission 

projection procedures for the years 2012, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, 2026, and 2028 are 

presented in Table 7-1 through Table 7-12. In these tables, all locomotive emissions have 

been summed up to the county level. Tables 7-1 through 7-4 present the daily controlled 

and uncontrolled NOx and VOC emissions by the nine DFW counties. Tables 7-5 through 

7-8 present the daily controlled and uncontrolled NOX and VOC emissions by the four 

DFW counties. Tables 7-9 through 7-12 present the daily controlled and uncontrolled 

NOx and VOC emissions for the eight HGB counties. 

Table 7-1. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NOX Emissions (tons)by Year 

for the Dallas/

Fort Worth - 9 County Area

County Name

Daily NOX Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.364 0.365 0.319 0.298 0.272 0.239 0.219

Dallas 1.685 1.652 1.487 1.388 1.283 1.101 1.002

Denton 2.144 2.089 1.769 1.606 1.416 1.190 1.056

Ellis 1.052 1.018 0.864 0.784 0.693 0.581 0.515

Johnson 1.650 1.620 1.396 1.277 1.142 0.966 0.864

Kaufman 0.519 0.498 0.421 0.382 0.336 0.281 0.249

Parker 0.789 0.758 0.641 0.581 0.511 0.429 0.380

Rockwall 0.024 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.024

Tarrant 6.136 6.010 5.317 4.914 4.479 3.801 3.429

Total 14.362 14.035 12.239 11.254 10.157 8.611 7.738
7-2

Table 7-2. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NOX Emissions (tons) by 

Year for the Dallas/

Fort Worth - 9 County Area

County Name

Daily NOX Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.656 0.694 0.695 0.725 0.753 0.768 0.770

Dallas 4.484 4.572 2.963 3.084 3.195 3.255 3.121

Denton 4.290 4.461 4.462 4.655 4.829 4.926 4.937

Ellis 2.190 2.256 2.156 2.249 2.333 2.380 2.385

Johnson 3.468 3.602 3.261 3.403 3.530 3.601 3.610

Kaufman 1.038 1.063 1.064 1.111 1.153 1.176 1.179

Parker 1.579 1.617 1.619 1.690 1.754 1.789 1.793

Rockwall 0.025 0.026 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.029 0.029

Tarrant 15.517 15.895 10.983 11.462 11.892 12.131 12.160

Total 33.247 34.186 27.230 28.407 29.467 30.054 29.984

Table 7-3. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by 

Year for the Dallas/

Fort Worth - 9 County Area

County Name

Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.020 0.019 0.015 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.010

Dallas 0.101 0.095 0.082 0.073 0.067 0.057 0.051

Denton 0.119 0.106 0.080 0.066 0.057 0.049 0.041

Ellis 0.059 0.052 0.040 0.033 0.028 0.024 0.020

Johnson 0.093 0.085 0.067 0.057 0.050 0.043 0.037

Kaufman 0.029 0.025 0.019 0.016 0.013 0.011 0.010

Parker 0.044 0.038 0.029 0.024 0.021 0.017 0.015

Rockwall 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002

Tarrant 0.361 0.336 0.280 0.244 0.221 0.185 0.163

Total 0.826 0.759 0.613 0.526 0.472 0.400 0.349
7-3

Table 7-4. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by 

Year for the Dallas/

Fort Worth - 9 County Area

County Name

Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.025 0.027 0.027 0.028 0.029 0.030 0.030

Dallas 0.126 0.130 0.130 0.136 0.141 0.144 0.144

Denton 0.166 0.172 0.173 0.180 0.187 0.191 0.191

Ellis 0.082 0.084 0.084 0.088 0.091 0.093 0.093

Johnson 0.126 0.132 0.132 0.138 0.143 0.146 0.146

Kaufman 0.040 0.041 0.041 0.043 0.045 0.046 0.046

Parker 0.061 0.063 0.063 0.066 0.068 0.069 0.070

Rockwall 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Tarrant 0.469 0.486 0.487 0.508 0.527 0.537 0.539

Total 1.097 1.137 1.138 1.188 1.232 1.257 1.260

Table 7-5. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NOX Emissions (tons) by Year 

for the Dallas/

Fort Worth - 4 County Area

County Name

Daily NOX Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.364 0.365 0.319 0.298 0.272 0.239 0.219

Dallas 1.685 1.652 1.487 1.388 1.283 1.101 1.002

Denton 2.144 2.089 1.769 1.606 1.416 1.190 1.056

Tarrant 6.136 6.010 5.317 4.914 4.479 3.801 3.429

Total 10.328 10.116 8.893 8.205 7.450 6.330 5.705

Table 7-6. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NOX Emissions (tons) by 

Year for the Dallas/

Fort Worth - 4 County Area

County Name

Daily NOX Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.656 0.694 0.695 0.725 0.753 0.768 0.770

Dallas 4.484 4.572 2.963 3.084 3.195 3.255 3.121

Denton 4.290 4.461 4.462 4.655 4.829 4.926 4.937

Tarrant 15.517 15.895 10.983 11.462 11.892 12.131 12.160

Total 24.947 25.622 19.103 19.927 20.669 21.080 20.988
7-4

Table 7-7. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by Year 

for the Dallas/

Fort Worth - 4 County Area

County Name

Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.020 0.019 0.015 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.010

Dallas 0.101 0.095 0.082 0.073 0.067 0.057 0.051

Denton 0.119 0.106 0.080 0.066 0.057 0.049 0.041

Tarrant 0.361 0.336 0.280 0.244 0.221 0.185 0.163

Total 0.601 0.556 0.457 0.396 0.358 0.302 0.266

Table 7-8. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by 

Year for the Dallas/

Fort Worth - 4 County Area

County Name

Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Collin 0.025 0.027 0.027 0.028 0.029 0.030 0.030

Dallas 0.126 0.130 0.130 0.136 0.141 0.144 0.144

Denton 0.166 0.172 0.173 0.180 0.187 0.191 0.191

Tarrant 0.469 0.486 0.487 0.508 0.527 0.537 0.539

Total 0.786 0.815 0.816 0.852 0.884 0.902 0.904

Table 7-9. Ozone Season Daily Controlled NOX Emissions (tons) by 

Year for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

County Name

Daily NOX Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Brazoria 1.201 1.167 0.998 0.908 0.807 0.677 0.603

Chambers 0.023 0.023 0.020 0.019 0.018 0.016 0.014

Fort Bend 2.563 2.503 2.126 1.931 1.707 1.435 1.275

Galveston 0.688 0.675 0.587 0.542 0.489 0.419 0.378

Harris 8.691 8.444 7.408 6.822 6.181 5.232 4.705

Liberty 2.844 2.788 2.451 2.259 2.050 1.737 1.563

Montgomery 1.061 1.037 0.886 0.811 0.723 0.616 0.552

Waller 0.194 0.187 0.158 0.143 0.126 0.106 0.094

Total 17.265 16.823 14.634 13.435 12.100 10.236 9.183
7-5

Table 7-10. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled NOX Emissions (tons) by 

Year for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

County Name

Daily NOX Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Brazoria 2.381 2.473 2.464 2.565 2.660 2.711 2.717

Chambers 0.064 0.071 0.065 0.065 0.067 0.067 0.068

Fort Bend 5.087 5.297 5.300 5.530 5.737 5.851 5.865

Galveston 1.267 1.316 1.316 1.373 1.425 1.453 1.456

Harris 15.626 16.123 16.101 16.785 17.408 17.751 17.792

Liberty 5.022 5.205 5.211 5.439 5.643 5.756 5.770

Montgomery 2.063 2.142 2.144 2.237 2.320 2.367 2.372

Waller 0.395 0.406 0.405 0.422 0.437 0.446 0.447

Total 31.906 33.033 33.005 34.415 35.697 36.402 36.488

Table 7-11. Ozone Season Daily Controlled VOC Emissions (tons) by 

Year for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

County Name

Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Brazoria 0.068 0.061 0.047 0.039 0.034 0.029 0.025

Chambers 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Fort Bend 0.142 0.128 0.097 0.080 0.070 0.060 0.051

Galveston 0.039 0.036 0.029 0.025 0.022 0.019 0.017

Harris 0.506 0.464 0.380 0.328 0.295 0.248 0.217

Liberty 0.166 0.154 0.127 0.110 0.099 0.083 0.073

Montgomery 0.059 0.053 0.041 0.034 0.030 0.027 0.023

Waller 0.011 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.004

Total 0.992 0.906 0.729 0.623 0.557 0.470 0.410
7-6

Table 7-2. Ozone Season Daily Uncontrolled VOC Emissions (tons) by 

Year for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Area

County Name

Daily VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2012 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2028

Brazoria 0.093 0.096 0.097 0.101 0.105 0.107 0.107

Chambers 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002

Fort Bend 0.198 0.206 0.207 0.216 0.224 0.228 0.229

Galveston 0.052 0.053 0.054 0.056 0.058 0.059 0.059

Harris 0.667 0.686 0.687 0.717 0.744 0.759 0.761

Liberty 0.218 0.226 0.227 0.236 0.245 0.250 0.251

Montgomery 0.080 0.083 0.083 0.087 0.090 0.092 0.092

Waller 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017

Total 1.324 1.369 1.371 1.431 1.484 1.514 1.518
8-1

8.0 References

1. Association of American Railroads, “Class I Railroad Statistics”, U.S. Railroad 

Ton-Miles (bil), July 15, 2014. 

2. ASLRRA. Railroad Members. 2011. 

http://www.aslrra.org/our_members/Railroad_Members/results.cfm?CFID=36

899488&CFTOKEN=278f8ad87ff8a2fd-CBB218F6-19B9-B58B7E8F55543E7A3D9B. Accessed January 20, 2012.

3. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2009. National Transportation Atlas 

Databases - National Rail Network 1:2,000,000. Washington, DC, Publisher: 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

4. U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Washington, D.C. 2000. “Ton-Miles of 

Freight by Mode: 1975–2025.” The Changing Face of Transportation. Report No. 

BTS00-007. 

5. M. Bergin, M. Harrell, J. McDill, M. Janssen, L. Driver, R. Fronczak, R. Nath, and 

D. Seep. “ERTAC Rail: A Collaborative Effort in Building a Railroad-Related 

Emissions Inventory Between Eastern States Air Protection Agencies and 

Participation with the Railroad Industry.” Presented at the 18th Annual 

International Emission Inventory Conference, Baltimore, MD, April 14-17, 2009.

6. M. Bergin, M. Harrell. “ERTAC Rail Emissions Inventory; Part 3: Class II and III 

Locomotives.” Memorandum to L. Driver. February 2, 2011.

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Emissions Inventory 

Report. Appendix C: Emission Factors. 2005.

8. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with 

projections to 2040, Table A7 Transportation Sector Key Indicators and 

Delivered Energy Consumption, DOE/EIA-0383ER, April 2014. 

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA Technical Highlights: 

Emission Factors for Locomotives. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

EPA-420-F-09-025, April 2009. 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress on Black Carbon, EPA 

-450/R-12-001, March 2012.

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

The 2011 National Emissions Inventory, September 2013.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

Technical Highlights: Emission Factors for Locomotives, EPA-420-F09-025, 

April 2009.
A-1

Appendix A. Internet Research for Existing and Potential Yard Locations

Location Yard Name Railroad Status Links

Beaumont Beaumont Yard UP Existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards

Fort Worth Davidson Yard UP Existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards

Houston Englewood Yard UP Existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards

Kendleton Kendleton Yard KCS Existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards

Slaton Slaton Yard 

BNSF/South 

Plains Lamesa 

Railroad

Existing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards

La Porte Strang Yard UP Existing http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_f

acility?p_registry_id=110035015079

Dallas Miller Yard UP Existing http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_detail.disp_program_f

acility?p_registry_id=110035273398

Eagle Ford San Antonio UP New http://missionrailpark.com/

San Antonio Southton Rail 

Yard UP & BNSF Existing http://southtonrailyard.com/about.html

Dallas KCS Rail Yard KCS Existing http://wikimapia.org/10547329/Kansas-City-Southern-RailYard

San Antonio Alamo Junction 

Rail Park UP & BNSF Proposed http://www.alamojunction.com/

Big Spring UP Proposed http://www.bigspringherald.com/content/rail-yard-could-bepossibility

Port Corpus 

Christi 

Commission 

(PCCA)

BNSF/KCS/U

P

Proposed http://www.progressiverailroading.com/intermodal/news/Texa

s-port-awards-rail-yard-contract--36514

Between 

Hearne and 

Mumford, 

Texas

UP Proposed

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/union_pacific/news/U

nion-Pacific-Railroad-proposes-to-build-one-of-Texas-largestclassification-yards-Hearne-mayor-says--31785

Houston

Port Terminal 

Railroad (PTRA) 

North Yard

KCS, NS, 

BNSF Existing

http://www.ptra.com/index.php/about-us/ptra-yards.html

http://www.usa.com/frs/union-pacific-railroad-settegastyard.html

Houston PTRA 

Manchester Yard UP/BNSF Existing http://www.ptra.com/index.php/about-us/ptra-yards.html
A-2

Appendix A. Internet Research for Existing and Potential Yard Locations

Location Yard Name Railroad Status Links

Houston PTRA Pasadena 

Yard UP/BNSF Existing http://www.ptra.com/index.php/about-us/ptra-yards.html

Houston PTRA Storage 

Yard UP Existing http://www.ptra.com/index.php/about-us/ptra-yards.html

Houston Settsgast Yard UP Existing http://www.railfanguides.us/tx/houston/map1/index.htm

Dallas KCS Dallas Yard KCS Existing http://www.railroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?12220

-KCS-yard-near-dallas-or-fort-worth

Wylie KCS Wylie Yard KCS, NS, 

BNSF Existing http://www.railroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?12220-KCS-yard-near-dallas-or-fort-worth

Dallas

Dallas Garland & 

Northeastern 

(DGNO) at 

Mockingbird yard

BNSF, KCS, 

TNER, and 

UP

Existing http://www.railroadforums.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo

/23775/title/dgno-at-mockingbird-yarddallas-tx/cat/562

Dallas Mockingbird yard DGNO Existing http://www.railroadforums.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo

/23775/title/dgno-at-mockingbird-yarddallas-tx/cat/562

Galveston

Texas 

International 

Terminals

UP Existing http://www.up.com/customers/coal/ports-docks/txterminals/index.htm

Robertson 

County UP Proposed http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/releases/capital_investment/2014/1002_tx-railyard.shtml

Blue Mound Alliance Railyard BNSF Existing http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM73KD_BNSF_Alli

ance_Railyard_Blue_Mound_Texas
B-1

Appendix B. Locomotive Emission Control Programs in Texas, 

2008-2040*

Rail 2008 to 2040 Control Programs

Year Programs Application Notes Source

2008 to 

2040 TxLED 110 Counties 6.2% Reduction in NOx

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/leg

al/rules/rule_lib/adoptions/09001114_aex.p

df

2008

TERP Statewide

NOx reduced by 4507 tons this year to 

various counties (listed in detail in the 

TERP table) 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution for Locomotive 

Engines and Marine 

Compression-ignition 

Engines Less than 30 Liters 

per Cylinder

Nationwide, 

Incorporated into EPA's 

EF's already

More stringent PM and NOx standards 

for remanufactured locomotives starting 

in 2008. - Full implementation of the 

rule will result in PM reductions of 90% 

and NOx reductions of 80% compared to 

current 2008 standards.

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/420f08004.pdf

2008 to 2011

Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution for Locomotive 

Engines and Marine 

Compression-ignition 

Engines Less than 30 Liters 

per Cylinder

Nationwide, 

Incorporated into EPA's 

EF's already

More stringent PM and NOx standards 

for new locomotives starting in 2008.

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/420f08004.pdf

2009 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 4392 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2010 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 4509 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2011 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 4327 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2012

Fuel Sulfur limit

Nationwide, 

Incorporated into EPA's 

EF's already

Sulfur content of diesel fuel limited to 15 

ppm starting in June. Included in EPA's 

Diesel fuel emission factors for 

locomotives.

http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ/fuels/dieselfuels/

index.htm
B-2

Appendix B. Locomotive Emission Control Programs in Texas, 

2008-2040*

Rail 2008 to 2040 Control Programs

Year Programs Application Notes Source

TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 3,225 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2012 to 2014

Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution for Locomotive 

Engines and Marine 

Compression-ignition 

Engines Less than 30 Liters 

per Cylinder

Nationwide, 

Incorporated into EPA's 

EF's already

New locomotives required to apply Tier 3 

standards to remanufactured and new 

locomotives to reduce PM and NOx

emissions. Also creates new idle 

reduction requirement for new and 

remanufactured locomotives.

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/420f08004.pdf

2013 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 3,349 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2014 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 3,349 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2015 to 

2040

Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution for Locomotive 

Engines and Marine 

Compression-ignition 

Engines Less than 30 Liters 

per Cylinder

Nationwide, 

Incorporated into EPA's 

EF's already

New locomotives required to use Tier 4 

high-efficiency catalytic after treatment 

technology.

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/420f08004.pdf

2015 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 1,473 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2016 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 649 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2017 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 638 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2018 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 608 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2019 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 608 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf
B-3

Appendix B. Locomotive Emission Control Programs in Texas, 

2008-2040*

Rail 2008 to 2040 Control Programs

Year Programs Application Notes Source

2020 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 608 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2021 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 608 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2022 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 608 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2023 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 608 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2024 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 608 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2025 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 598 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2026 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 534 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2027 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 482 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2028 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 482 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2029 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 324 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2030 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 149 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2031 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 149 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

2032 TERP Statewide NOx reduced by 149 tons 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/co

mm_exec/pubs/sfr/079_08.pdf

*Note: only the NOx and VOC reductions were used in the development of future emissions estimates for this report.