Bill Overview
Title: Stop Sexual Assault and Harassment in Transportation Act
Description: This bill establishes formal sexual assault and harassment policies for the transportation industry. Among other things, the bill requires certain passenger transportation carriers, including passenger airlines and vessels, buses, commuter and intercity passenger railroads, and transportation network companies (e.g., Uber or Lyft) to establish formal policies, training, and reporting structures regarding sexual assault and harassment; sets forth civil penalties for individuals who physically assault or sexually assault or threaten to assault transportation personnel; directs the Department of Transportation (DOT) to collect information on the number of sexual assault and harassment incidents reported by the carriers and make such information publicly available; expands the reporting process for individuals involved in transportation sexual assault or harassment incidents by allowing such individuals to report allegations to law enforcement in a manner that protects their privacy and confidentiality; assesses the accuracy of the reporting of transportation sexual assault or harassment incidents by the carriers; and requires DOT to develop and publish a definition of sexual harassment.
Sponsors: Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4]
Target Audience
Population: Passengers and operators in the global transportation industry
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill affects all passengers using transportation services including airlines, vessels, buses, commuter and intercity passenger railroads, and transportation network companies.
- Transportation service providers (businesses and employees) are required to establish and adhere to sexual assault and harassment policies, impacting their operations and employees.
- Individuals who have been victims of sexual assault or harassment during transit are directly impacted as the bill enhances reporting mechanisms and confidentiality.
- The general public benefits from enhanced safety measures and increased transparency, potentially reducing incidents of assault and harassment.
Reasoning
- The policy is intended to create safer transportation environments by enforcing strict policies and reporting structures related to sexual assault and harassment.
- The target population for this policy includes a wide range of people such as daily commuters, transportation workers, and occasional travelers, given the comprehensive scope of transportation modes covered.
- Since the policy mandates training and compliance for transportation providers, service operators might face increased operational costs in the short term but may benefit in the long term from improved public trust and utilization.
- People who have experienced or are vulnerable to harassment in public transportation will likely see the highest benefit from this policy.
- A significant portion of the general public might not notice immediate changes but will potentially benefit indirectly from improved safety and accountability measures.
Simulated Interviews
Research Analyst (New York City, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm often concerned for my safety when commuting, especially late at night.
- This policy seems like a necessary step to make transportation safer for everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Bus Driver (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could mean additional training for us, which is good though time-consuming.
- Public reporting might help reduce incidents but could add pressure to drivers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is crucial for people like me who have felt unsafe before.
- Knowing there are clear procedures and penalties might help victims feel supported.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know airlines and ride-shares are enforcing safety policies.
- As a frequent traveler, this policy enhances my confidence in using these services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Uber Driver (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Balancing new regulations with fair treatment for drivers is important.
- These policies could help in handling difficult passenger situations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reinforcing safety on public buses could encourage me to use them more often.
- I appreciate efforts to make public transportation safer, especially as a senior.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Freelance Photographer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing ride-sharing drivers are trained on these issues increases my safety perception.
- I'm glad to see more accountability in this sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this doesn't lead to higher ticket prices, but safety is worth the investment.
- Increased security on trains would lessen my worries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Policy Consultant (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is well-targeted to curb harassment incidents.
- Outcomes will largely depend on effective implementation and compliance monitoring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
School Teacher (Denver, CO)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm in favor of anything that increases safety for myself and my kids.
- It is important that these policies are enforced consistently.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $600000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $750000000)
Year 2: $580000000 (Low: $430000000, High: $730000000)
Year 3: $555000000 (Low: $405000000, High: $705000000)
Year 5: $525000000 (Low: $375000000, High: $675000000)
Year 10: $480000000 (Low: $340000000, High: $640000000)
Year 100: $400000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $550000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's success heavily relies on effective implementation and monitoring by transportation carriers and the DOT.
- Costs and savings impact very different areas; costs are immediate and concentrated on compliance, while savings accrue over time through reduced incidents.
- Impact on public perception and behavior is uncertain and difficult to quantify but could have significant long-term effects.