DOCSLIB.ORG

The Importance of Short Line Railroads to Rural and Agricultural America

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Importance of Short Line Railroads to Rural and Agricultural America The Importance of Short Line Railroads to Rural and Agricultural America John Bitzan Tamara VanWechel Douglas Benson Kimberly Vachal Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute North Dakota State University August 2003 Acknowledgment The researchers want to acknowledge the valuable contribution of the Transportation and Marketing Program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in their support for and discussions of this research. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. Abstract This study aims to fill in the gap for short-line research, while maximizing accuracy of results by utilizing Association of American Railroad’s Profiles database combined with American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association’ Annual Data Profile. More specifically, the study: (1) attempts to quantify the importance of local and regional railroads to the U.S. rural and agricultural economy and (2) examines factors affecting short-line viability and future prospects for a viable short-line network in the future. In 2000, short lines participated in nearly 30 percent (9.9 million carloads) of all rail movements. Thousands of customers are served by these railroads. It was estimated that more than 3,000 food product customers were served, more than 2,000 lumber and farm product customers, and more than 1,000 chemical and waste scrap customers utilized the services of short-line railroads. This report identifies several factors critical to the success of short line rail roads. Success was measured and analyzed by looking at variables related to traffic volume, backhaul traffic, reliance on industries and/or commodities, number of shippers, flexibility of labor, track conditions, management, and transportation competition. i ii Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................1 Nationwide Assessment of the Role of Short Lines in Rural and Agricultural Communities .............2 Estimating Rail Car Loadings by Commodity .......................................5 Methodology for Estimating Carloads ............................................8 Estimates of Short Line Participation, Origination, and Termination ...................... 10 Revenue Ton-Miles ....................................................... 14 Customers ............................................................. 16 Geographic Distribution of Carloadings ............................................... 18 North Dakota’s Experience with Short Line Rail Carriers ................................... 25 North Dakota Rail System ......................................................... 26 Short Line Performance .......................................................... 27 Conclusion ................................................................... 65 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Railroad Industry Consist, 1999 ...............................................3 Figure 2. Miles Operated, Employees, and Revenues of U.S. Railroads, 1999 ......................4 Figure 3. Percent of Rail Miles Operated by Short Lines, 2000 ................................4 Figure 4. Estimated Percent of Industry Carloads Captured by the ADP ..........................6 Figure 5. Carloads Originated by Local, Regional and S&T Railroads, 2000 .......................8 Figure 6. Short Line Participation in U.S. Carloadings, 1993-2000 ............................. 10 Figure 7. Short Line Participation in U.S. Carloadings, 2000 - by Commodity ..................... 11 Figure 8. Short Line Origination of U.S. Carloadings, 1993-2000 .............................. 11 Figure 9. Short Line Origination of U.S. Carloadings, 2000 - by Commodity ...................... 12 Figure 10. Short Line Termination of U.S. Carloadings, 1993-2000 ............................ 13 Figure 11. Short Line Termination of U.S. Carloadings, 2000 - by Commodity .................... 14 Figure 12. Short Line Percentage of U.S. Revenue Ton-Miles. ............................... 15 Figure 14. Estimated Number of Short Line Customers, 2000 ................................ 17 Figure 15. Regional Definitions ..................................................... 19 Figure 16. Short Line Carloadings by Region, 2000 ....................................... 22 Figure 17. Total Short Line Originating Carloads by Region, 2000 ............................. 23 Figure 18. Percent of Each Region’s Agriculture Production Originated by Short Line ............... 24 Figure 19. Percent of Each Region’s Coal Production Originated by Short Lines ................... 24 Figure 20. North Dakota Rail System ................................................. 25 Figure 21. N.D. Elevator Rating of Rail Customer Service .................................. 31 Figure 22. Delay of Delivery for Tariff Rail Car Orders .................................... 31 Figure 23. Operating Ratio Comparison, 2000 ........................................... 37 Figure 24. Operating Expense per Carload Comparison, 2000 ................................ 38 Figure 25. Revenue per Carload Comparison, 2000 ....................................... 38 Figure 26. Operating Expense per Ton-Mile Comparison, 2000 ............................... 39 Figure 27. Revenue per Ton-Mile Comparison, 2000 ...................................... 39 Figure 28. Carloads per Mile Comparison, 2000 ......................................... 40 Figure 29. Ton-Miles per Mile Comparison, 2000 ........................................ 41 Figure 30. Traffic Balance Comparison, 2000 ........................................... 42 Figure 31. Concentration Index of Commodities Hauled Comparison, 2000 ...................... 44 Figure 32. Number of Industries Served Comparison, 2000 ................................. 44 Figure 33. Number of Customers Comparison, 2000 ...................................... 45 Figure 34. Customers per Carload Comparison, 2000 ...................................... 46 Figure 35. Percent of Employees Covered by Unions Comparison, 2000 ........................ 48 Figure 36. Average Employee Compensation per Hour comparison, 2000 ........................ 48 Figure 37. Ton-Miles per Employee Compensation, 2000 ................................... 49 Figure 38. Carloads per Employee Comparison, 2000 ...................................... 49 Figure 39. Ton-Miles per Employee Compensation, 2000 ................................... 50 Figure 40. Carloads per Man Hour Comparison, 2000 ..................................... 50 Figure 41. Percent of Track <90 lbs. Comparison, 1996 ................................... 51 Figure 42. Percent of Track that is Excepted Comparison, 2000 .............................. 52 Figure 43. Operating Ratio, 2000 .................................................... 53 Figure 44. Operating Expenses per Carload, 2000 ........................................ 54 iv Figure 45. Operating Expenses per Ton-Mile, 2000 ....................................... 54 Figure 46. Operating Revenue per Car, 2000 ............................................ 55 Figure 47. Operating Revenue per Ton-Mile, 2000 ........................................ 55 Figure 48. Carloads per Mile, 2000 .................................................. 56 Figure 49. Ton-Miles per Mile, 2000 ................................................. 56 Figure 50. Traffic Balance, 2000 .................................................... 57 Figure 51. Concentration Index of Commodities Hauled, 2000 ............................... 58 Figure 52. Number of Industries Served, 2000 .......................................... 58 Figure 53. Number of Customers, 2000 ............................................... 59 Figure 54. Customers per Carload, 2000 ............................................... 60 Figure 55. Percent of Employees Covered by Labor Union Agreements, 2000 ..................... 60 Figure 56. Average Employee Compensation per Hour, 2000 ................................ 61 Figure 57. Ton-Miles per Employee, 2000 ............................................. 61 Figure 58. Carloads per Employee, 2000 ............................................... 62 Figure 59. Ton-Miles per Man Hour, 2000 ............................................. 62 Figure 60. Carloads per Man Hour, 2000 .............................................. 63 Figure 61. Percent of Track <90 lbs., 1996 ............................................ 63 Figure 62. Percent of Track that is Excepted, 2000 ....................................... 64 v List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of Production, Transportation, and Population Characteristics of the Eight U.S. Regions in 2000 ............................................ 20 Table 2. N.D. Track Miles, Elevators Served, and Market Share for Grain & Oilseed Origination by Railroad, 1995/96 ........................................... 26 Table 3 Market Share for N.D. Elevator Grain & Oilseed Shipments ........................ 27 Table 4 Modal Distribution for N.D. Grain & Oilseed Shipments, Percent Originated by Rail from Elevators served by Each Railroad ................................... 28 Table 5 Traffic Density - Grain Shipments per Mile of Track, Average 1992-93 to 1995-96 ....... 29 Table 6 N.D. Elevators’ Rating of Railroad
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report Sept 2015 - August 2016 Annual Report 2015-2016
    Annual Report Sept 2015 - August 2016 Annual Report 2015-2016 Rail Transportation Program Vision: “Develop leaders and technologies for 21st century rail transportation.” Mission: “To participate in the development of rail transportation and related engineering skills for the 21st century through an interdisciplinary and collaborative program that aligns Michigan Tech faculty and students with the demands of the industry.” 2 Director’s Message One of the easiest tasks for the Michigan Tech’s Rail Transportation Program Director is writing the message for the annual report. We never seem to be short of stories and while much of our work is about consistency from year to year, each one of them also contains highlights that are special for the year in question, and 2015-2016 was no exception. Perhaps the greatest achievement for the year was the approval of our Rail Transportation minor to the university curriculum. The minor follows our RTP vision by being multidisciplinary and flexible and we’re hoping that our first graduate with the minor will be during next academic year. The second special moment of the year took place in mid-August when we hosted the 4th Annual Michigan Rail Conference for the first time in the Upper Peninsula. The conference (held in Marquette with field visits to Escanaba) had a record participation and sponsorship levels and our field trips turned out as an experience beyond belief. For two days, it was great to be a “Yooper railroader”. From the projects/research perspective, we were pleased to have our first two projects with the greatest industry supporter of our program, CN Railway.
    [Show full text]
  • Competitive Issues in the Deregulated United States Railroad Industry
    University of Nebraska at Omaha DigitalCommons@UNO Student Work 11-1-1997 Competitive Issues in the Deregulated United States Railroad Industry Johannes Christian Koeppe University of Nebraska at Omaha Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork Recommended Citation Koeppe, Johannes Christian, "Competitive Issues in the Deregulated United States Railroad Industry" (1997). Student Work. 1363. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork/1363 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Work by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Competitive Issues in the Deregulated United States Railroad Industry A Thesis Presented to Business Administration and the Faculty of the Graduate College University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Business Administration University of Nebraska at Omaha by Johannes Christian Koeppe November 1997 UMI Number: EP73403 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissartatton Publishing UMI EP73403 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346 ii THESIS ACCEPTANCE Acceptance for hte faculty of the Graduate College, University of Nebraska, in partial fullfillment of the Requriements for the degree of Master of Business Administration, University of Nebraska at Omaha.
    [Show full text]
  • Freight Rail B
    FREIGHT RAIL B Pennsylvania has 57 freight railroads covering 5127 miles across the state, ranking it 4th largest rail network by mileage in the U.S. By 2035, 246 million tons of freight is expected to pass through the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, an increase of 22 percent over 2007 levels. Pennsylvania’s railroad freight demand continues to exceed current infrastructure. Railroad traffic is steadily returning to near- World War II levels, before highways were built to facilitate widespread movement of goods by truck. Rail projects that could be undertaken to address the Commonwealth’s infrastructure needs total more than $280 million. Annual state-of-good-repair track and bridge expenditures for all railroad classes within the Commonwealth are projected to be approximately $560 million. Class I railroads which are the largest railroad companies are poised to cover their own financial needs, while smaller railroads are not affluent enough and some need assistance to continue service to rural areas of the state. BACKGROUND A number of benefits result from using rail freight to move goods throughout the U.S. particularly on longer routes: congestion mitigation, air quality improvement, enhancement of transportation safety, reduction of truck traffic on highways, and economic development. Railroads also remain the safest and most cost efficient mode for transporting hazardous materials, coal, industrial raw materials, and large quantities of goods. Since the mid-1800s, rail transportation has been the centerpiece of industrial production and energy movement. Specifically, in light of the events of September 11, 2001 and from a national security point of view, railroads are one of the best ways to produce a more secure system for transportation of dangerous or hazardous products.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Competition in the Us Freight Railroad Industry and Analysis Of
    A STUDY OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. FREIGHT RAILROAD INDUSTRY AND ANALYSIS OF PROPOSALS THAT MIGHT ENHANCE COMPETITION Revised Final Report Laurits R. Christensen Associates, Inc. Madison, WI November 2009 Executive Summary of Revised Final Report Prepared for The Surface Transportation Board Washington, DC Preface to Revised Final Report In November 2008, Christensen Associates issued A Study of Competition in the U.S. Freight Railroad Industry and Analysis of Proposals that Might Enhance Competition. We believed our analysis was based on revenue information from the unmasked Customer Waybill Sample (CWS). However, it has since been discovered that we were provided with a mixture of masked and unmasked CWS revenue data for years 2001- 2006, with the effect that masked revenues were used in portions of our analysis. Additionally, the Surface Transportation Board revised CWS data from 1990-1999 that were used to develop data on long-term trends in shipment volumes, revenue, and characteristics. Consequently, the Surface Transportation Board has retained Christensen Associates to revise the original report with the corrected CWS revenue information as well as to update the results with 2007 and 2008 information that has become available since the original report was released. Using unmasked revenues has generally minor effects on the econometric pricing analysis presented in Chapters 11-15. The corrected analysis shows generally similar responsiveness of revenue per ton-mile to cost- related shipment characteristics and market structure factors as the originally published study. Since unmasked revenues are lower overall than masked revenues, distributions of the revenue-to-variable cost ratio (R/VC) for shipment tonnage and ton-miles reported in Chapter 11 shifted downward, with markedly lower shares above 300 percent R/VC and higher shares below 100 percent R/VC.
    [Show full text]
  • RAIL (FREIGHT) B 2006 Report Card for Pennsylvania’S Infrastructure
    RAIL (FREIGHT) B 2006 Report Card for Pennsylvania’s Infrastructure In 1998, 919 million tons of freight passed through the Commonwealth. In 2020, that value is expected to be 1,397 million tons. Railroad freight demand is growing at a much faster rate than the general population, and railroad traffic is steadily approaching World War II levels. Projects that could be undertaken to address the Commonwealth’s infrastructure needs total some $280 million. Annual state of good repair track and bridge expenditures for all railroad classes within the state are projected to be approximately $560 million. Class I and larger railroads are more poised to cover their own financial needs. Smaller railroads are not as fortunate and need the most assistance to remain competitive. BACKGROUND A number of benefits result from supporting rail freight: congestion mitigation, air quality improvement, improving transportation safety, curtailing truck traffic growth on highways, job growth and economic development. Railroads also remain the safest and most viable mode for transporting hazardous materials, coal, industrial raw materials and large quantities of goods. Since the mid-1800’s, rail transportation has been the centerpiece of industrial production and energy generation. Specifically, in light of September 11th and from a national security point of view, railroads are one of most secure options for transporting dangerous or hazardous products. In fact, the majority of spent nuclear fuel rods will likely be sent via rail to the newly established federal depository. Surely, many of these shipments will pass through the Keystone State. By further improving the rail infrastructure, railroad operation can become even safer and more difficult to disrupt by any terrorist group.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secretary of Transportation to Conduct a Study on the Levels and Strucnire of Insurance for Railroad Carriers That Transport Hazardous Materials
    THE SECRETARY OF TRAN SPORTATI ON WASHINGTON. DC 20590 November 29, 2017 The Honorable John Thune Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is the Rail Liability Study as required by Section 73 10 of the "Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015" (Publi c Law 11 4-94). The Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study on the levels and strucnire of insurance for railroad carriers that transport hazardous materials. The U.S. Department of Transpo1tation, through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, has completed the study and issues this letter and the attached Report to prcsem its findings. Sim il ar letters have been sen t to the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and In fra structure. Enclosure THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON. DC 20590 November 29, 2017 The Honorable Bi ll Nelson Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Uni ted States Senate Washington, DC 205 10 Dear Senator Nelson: Enc losed is the Rail Liability Study as required by Section 7310 of the "Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015" (Public Law 114-94). The Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study on the levels and stmcture of insurance for railroad carriers that transport hazardous materials. The U.S. Department of Transportation, through the Pi pe line and I lazardous Materials Safety Administration, has completed the study and issues this lcner and the attached Report to present its findin gs.
    [Show full text]
  • SWUTC/06/473700-00027-1 October 2006 IMPORTANCE of SHORT
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. SWUTC/06/473700-00027-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date IMPORTANCE OF SHORT LINE RAILROADS TO TEXAS October 2006 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jeffery E. Warner and Manuel Solari Terra Report 473700-00027-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 DTRS99-G-0006 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Southwest Region University Transportation Center Research Report: Texas Transportation Institute September 2004-August 2005 Texas A&M University System 14. Sponsoring Agency Code College Station, TX 77843-3135 15. Supplementary Notes Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program 16. Abstract Short line railroads employ more than 20,000 persons, serve 11,500 customer facilities, and originate or terminate approximately 25 percent of all rail movements. A good portion of short lines also operate on rail lines that were previously unprofitable and are often the lifeline for many rural agriculture communities. Texas currently has 41 short line railroads that operate on more than 2,600 miles of track, which represents almost 20 percent of the state rail infrastructure. The remainder of the track is operated by the three Class I railroads in the state. Nationwide, there are seven Class I and 545 short line railroads. The Class I railroads are characterized by long distance movement of freight over high-density rail lines between major markets.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Capacity of Railroad Network and Airport Terminals For
    from Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) website. Railroad crossing inventory database was obtained from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The BTS and FRA data obtained were large and could not be used directly into the model algorithm. Thus, selection criterion was developed to limit the railroad network and airports in the study region. The selected class I railroads and selected airports data were arranged in appropriate format for proper application of the above- specified methodologies. Application of methodologies to datasets identified the areas with excess capacity and limited capacity (Potential bottlenecks) for railroads in study region. Track utilization factor (TUF) in terms of usage to practical capacity was developed for segments of railroad network. It was observed from the study that the average train speed is the critical factor affecting the railroad capacity. The study also estimates the airport capacity and showed the freight flow (tons per month), number of passenger and freight aircrafts per hour served within each major intercity airports in the study region. It was observed that most of the major airports in the upper Midwest freight corridor study region have higher than 50 percent-unused capacities. iii Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to thank my advisor, Dr. Jiwan Gupta, for his patience and invaluable guidance throughout my research and my stay at The University of Toledo. I am grateful to my committee members Dr. Peter Lindquist and Dr. Naser Mostaghel for their advice and suggestions on this work. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Peter Lindquist for providing me data for the study.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Short Line Railroads to Rural and Agricultural America
    The Importance of Short Line Railroads to Rural and Agricultural America John Bitzan Tamara VanWechel Douglas Benson Kimberly Vachal Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute North Dakota State University August 2003 Acknowledgment The researchers want to acknowledge the valuable contribution of the Transportation and Marketing Program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in their support for and discussions of this research. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. Abstract This study aims to fill in the gap for short-line research, while maximizing accuracy of results by utilizing Association of American Railroad’s Profiles database combined with American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association’ Annual Data Profile. More specifically, the study: (1) attempts to quantify the importance of local and regional railroads to the U.S. rural and agricultural economy and (2) examines factors affecting short-line viability and future prospects for a viable short-line network in the future. In 2000, short lines participated in nearly 30 percent (9.9 million carloads) of all rail movements. Thousands of customers are served by these railroads. It was estimated that more than 3,000 food product customers were served, more than 2,000 lumber and farm product customers, and more than 1,000 chemical and waste scrap customers utilized the services of short-line railroads.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Management, Policy and Technology"
    PRO CEE J IN S- Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting Theme: "Transportation Management, Policy and Technology" November 2-5, 1983 Marriott Crystal City Hotel Marriott Crystal Gateway Hotel Arlington, VA Volume XXIV • Number 1 1983 gc <rR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH FORUM 451 Impact of Staggers Rail Act on the Branchline Abandonment Process by Keith A. Klindworth* INTRODUCTION on existing abandonment procedures, and (2) to measure the impact of these WITH THE PASSAGE of the Stag- statutory changes by comparing sets of gers Rail Act of 1980, significant pre-Staggers and post-Staggers aban- changes were made in the federal sys- donment cases. tem of regulating railroad companies. Regulatory control over railroad activi- ties was significantly reduced with the STATUTORY CHANGES railroads receiving greater pricing and OF THE STAGGERS ACT service freedoms. The primary change made by fife One of the regulatory changes made Staggers Rail Act of 1980 concerning by the Staggers Act is in the process by branchline abandonment rs in the aban- Which rail carriers are allowed to dis- donment process: This change can lie continue operations on unprofitable low characterized as one of ,procedure, cr traffic density branch lines. The aban- form, as opposed to substantive change donment of branch lines is an emotional in abandonment law which defines the issue for rural agricultural shippers abandonment right. In this specific in- who fear a major increase in their mar- stance, while abandonment procedures keting costs, and rural communities and changed significantly, the substantive local governments which expect a crip- language in the U.S. Code concerning Piing effect on other businesses and an branch line abandonment remains large- accelerated deterioration of rural roads ly unchanged by the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Line Railroads and Municipal Land Use Planning, Policy, and Regulation
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Masters Theses Dissertations and Theses July 2015 Short Line Railroads and Municipal Land Use Planning, Policy, and Regulation Alexander R. Train University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/masters_theses_2 Part of the Environmental Design Commons, and the Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons Recommended Citation Train, Alexander R., "Short Line Railroads and Municipal Land Use Planning, Policy, and Regulation" (2015). Masters Theses. 211. https://doi.org/10.7275/6956473 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/masters_theses_2/211 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Short Line Railroads and Municipal Land Use Planning, Policy, and Regulation A Thesis Presented By ALEXANDER R. TRAIN Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF REGIONAL PLANNING May 2015 Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning © Copyright by Alexander R. Train 2015 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Short Line Railroads and Municipal Land Use Planning, Policy, and Regulation A Thesis
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Inventory Guidance for Locomotive Emissions
    Report No. SR2004-06-01 Revised Inventory Guidance For Locomotive Emissions prepared for: Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. June 2004 prepared by: Sierra Research, Inc. 1801 J Street Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 444-6666 Report No. SR2006-04-01 Revised Inventory Guidance for Locomotive Emissions Prepared for Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. June 2004 Prepared by: Sierra Research, Inc. 1801 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444-6666 and Dr. Larry Caretto Consultant Report No. SR2004-04-01 Revised Inventory Guidance For Locomotive Emissions Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 2. Overview of Recommended Inventory Methodology ................................................... 3 3. Recommended Methods................................................................................................. 4 Class I Line-Haul Locomotives .................................................................................... 4 Class II and Class III Line-Haul Locomotives ............................................................11 Yard Operations ...........................................................................................................12 Appendix A – Converting from Total Hydrocarbons (THC) to Other Measures of Organic Gases Appendix B – Sample Calculations Appendix C – Contact Information 1. INTRODUCTION This document illustrates how a state or local agency can calculate emissions from
    [Show full text]