Bill Overview
Title: Expedited Delivery of Airport Infrastructure Act of 2021
Description: This act makes incentive payments incurred for expedited completion of certain federally financed airport development projects an allowable project cost standard.
Sponsors: Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]
Target Audience
Population: People who travel by air or work in airport-related sectors globally
Estimated Size: 160000000
- The act is focused on federally financed airport development projects which implies it will primarily impact airports in the United States.
- Airport infrastructure projects include construction, maintenance, and upgrades which impact those employed in aviation, construction, and related sectors.
- Quick completion of such projects can improve airport efficiency which affects passengers traveling through these airports.
- Enhanced airport facilities may also impact local businesses and economies that rely on airport connectivity.
Reasoning
- The policy targets quick completion of federally funded airport projects, directly impacting those employed in construction and aviation sectors. This means that people in these industries will experience the highest impact from potential job growth and economic activity, which should be captured in the interviews.
- Passengers and travelers using these airports will have a varying degree of impact on their wellbeing. The quality and efficiency of airport facilities contribute indirectly.
- Local businesses that rely on airport traffic could see improvements, though the direct impact on their wellbeing will often require a longer time to manifest.
- To represent cost constraints, diversity in impact levels should be demonstrated, including people who are minimally or not affected by the policy, such as those not using air travel or whose work is unrelated to airport infrastructure.
- The economic activity generated from expedited projects may not be strongly felt by the general public but may lead to modest improvements for frequent travelers and local businesses relying on such connectivity.
- Considering varied US population types, it's necessary to include perspectives from frequent fliers, the construction workforce, residents near airports, and those employed within the aviation industry.
Simulated Interviews
Project Manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a game-changer for project timelines. Faster completion means more projects can start earlier, ensuring continuous work flow for companies like ours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Airline Pilot (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More efficient infrastructure can reduce delays and improve turnaround times, which is hugely beneficial for pilots. Our schedules could be less hectic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Dallas, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced infrastructure could mean more passengers and better business. I'd be inclined to expand our menu or hire more staff if traffic increases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Frequent Traveler (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements in airport facilities could make my travel less stressful. Reduced delays and a smoother transit experience is always appreciated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Civil Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expedited projects could mean job security and more opportunities. Also, it's interesting work to design more efficient systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Construction Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With projects picking up pace, we see more consistent work. This law could mean fewer gaps between jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Software Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Indirectly, improved airport systems could make my work more meaningful. Better performance data will drive innovation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retirement gives me time to appreciate finer things. Smooth traveling means more enjoyable vacations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Air Traffic Controller (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Faster project timelines could improve facilities, but my workload likely won't change much without additional staffing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Travel Blogger (Denver, CO)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better airport facilities mean I can give readers improved insights on travel experiences, possibly encouraging more travel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1050000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 3: $1100000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $950000000, High: $1350000000)
Year 10: $1300000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 100: $1400000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1500000000)
Key Considerations
- Incentive payments can significantly affect the fiscal budget allocated for infrastructure projects.
- Potential over-extended bidding in attempting to gain incentive payments may increase the cost beyond estimations.
- The actual savings highly depend on the efficiency and management of incentivized projects.